Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Response: Psychology Is a Behavioral Science, Not a Biological Science, By Gary Greenberg and Charles Lambdin—Correct Conclusion, Unsound Arguments

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Greenberg and Lambdin’s review (in the summer 2007 issue) does an excellent job of summarizing the contents of Uttal’s book Neural Theories of Mind: Why the Mind-Brain Problem May Never Be Solved (hereafter NTM). Furthermore, these authors make several insightful comments about the issues raised in NTM. I disagree, however, with two aspects of Greenberg and Lambdin’s review: one a matter of opinion, the other of fact. First, I am surprised at the authors’ generally positive assessment of NTM, because they (and I) disagree with Uttal’s fundamental notion that minds exist and that the brain is the source of behavior. Second, I take issue with some of Greenberg and Lambdin’s interpretations of neuroscience research, which they use, rightly, to argue that psychology is not a biological science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BEYERSTEIN, B. (1999). Whence cometh the myth that we only use ten percent of our brains? In Sergio Della Sala (Ed.), Mind-myths: Exploring everyday mysteries of the mind and brain. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • HUBBARD, E. M. (2003). A discussion and review of Uttal (2001), “The New Phrenology.” Cognitive Science Online, 1, 22–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • KENNEDY, J. L. (1959). A possible artifact in electroencephalography. Psychological Review, 66, 347–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LEWIN, R. (1980). Is your brain really necessary? Science, 210, 1232–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MILLER, H. L. (1968). Alpha waves—artifacts? Psychological Bulletin, 69, 279–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • OSWALD, I. (1961). On the origin of the EEG alpha rhythm. Psychological Review, 68, 360–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ROSNER, B. S. (1961). Alpha rhythm of the EEG and mechanical properties of the brain. Psychological Review, 68, 259–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 1950, 193–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • UTTAL, W. R. (2001). The new phrenology: The limits of localizing cognitive processes in the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UTTAL, W. R. (2005). Neural theories of mind: Why the mind-brain problem may never be solved. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and School of Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland

    Robert Whelan

  2. Department of Psychiatry, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Robert Whelan

Authors
  1. Robert Whelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Whelan.

Additional information

Address correspondence to Robert Whelan, Department of Psychiatry, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. E-mail: robert.whelan@ucd.ie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whelan, R. In Response: Psychology Is a Behavioral Science, Not a Biological Science, By Gary Greenberg and Charles Lambdin—Correct Conclusion, Unsound Arguments. Psychol Rec 58, 315–318 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395618

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395618

Search

Navigation