Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience
dc.contributor.author | PARDO, Michael S. | |
dc.contributor.author | PATTERSON, Dennis | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-03-19T16:04:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-03-19T16:04:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1725-6739 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/13589 | |
dc.description.abstract | According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to transform law. Many neurolegalists—those championing the power of neuroscience for law—proceed from problematic premises regarding the relationship of mind to brain. In this Article, we make the case that their accounts of the nature of mind are implausible and that their conclusions are overblown. Thus, their claims of the power of neuroscience for law cannot be sustained. We discuss a wide array of examples including lie detection, criminal-law doctrine, economic decision-making, moral decision-making, and jurisprudence | en |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | EUI LAW | en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | 2010/02 | en |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.subject | Legal theory | en |
dc.subject | legal philosophy | en |
dc.subject | neuroscience | en |
dc.subject | jurisprudence | en |
dc.subject | philosophy | en |
dc.subject | Wittgenstein | en |
dc.subject | epistemology | en |
dc.subject | philosophy of mind | en |
dc.title | Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience | en |
dc.type | Working Paper | en |
eui.subscribe.skip | true |
Files associated with this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
LAW Working Papers
LAW Working Papers series (ISSN 1725-6739)