The next issue of the New York Times Magazine has an article on the way neuroscience is changing the law and judicial system.  More reasons why philosophers of mind and ethicists should not ignore neuroscience.


  1. I wonder why the academia not recognize yet scientific materialism in its broader scope.

    Today not many deny that and adequate explanation of mind faculties at least requires some knowledge of brain facts, but when some sorts of materialism trys to approach particular aspects of man characteristics and activites, suddenly voices of fear appear accussing of reductionism or psycholegal errors trying to give an account of reasons in terms of some diminished function of brain areas never to be show in the spirit of law.

    Although many important scholars show legitimate skepticism about the proper way in which a biological analysis of law should to be conducted (see the intersting debate between Brian Leiter Vs Owen D. Jones),
    i think sooner or later a neuroscientic informed approach to law will be mainstream and i endorse the idea that neuroscience will change law education and practice.

Comments are closed.

Back to Top
%d bloggers like this: