Abstract
Abstract Caramazza's hypothetico-deductive analysis of the role of single-patient studies as relevant evidence for models of normal cognitive function is contrasted with an alternative account based on the bootstrapping model of Glymour (1980). We show how these two accounts differ in their analyses of the evidential relevance of associations of deficits and dissociations in performance. We clarify the logic applicable to each type of experiment and we illustrate the more complex case of associations with examples from the literature.
Full Text
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call