Getting Brainy: A Month of Law & Neuro

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Individual irrationality/group rationality/evolutionary cooperation; for example the work of Dan Ariely, Paul Zak, and Martin Nowak.

    Namely, how do behaviors that are irrational/suboptimal for the individual lead to optimal group interactions, how do those behaviors survive natural selection processes, and what neuro-mechanisms enforce irrational behavior in a rational animal?

  2. A.J. Sutter says:

    1. Epistemics, e.g.: How can one make judgments about what an individual is thinking, or at least thinking about, from statistics based on observations of others? What sorts of populations are used to derive those statistics? (E.g., American university students?) What burden of proof could this meet?

    2. Justice: Why does anything “neuro” serve the interests of justice better than a non-neuro approach? What sort of justice does it serve (utilitarian, deonotlogical, etc.)?

    3. And in a broader philosophical context, what is gained and what is lost by attempting to reduce the social and moral to the biological? What is the deeper discourse that is driving this trend?

  3. John Meyers says:

    I am most interested in “criminal theory.” Thanks for asking.

  4. Amanda Pustilnik says:

    Thanks so far for the ideas and suggestions – I very much appreciate them. I definitely will comment on why “neuro” is better – I don’t think that it categorically is – and on criminal theory.