In Minds, Brains, and Law, Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson argue that current attempts to use neuroscience to inform the theory and practice of law founder because they are built on confused conceptual foundations. Proponents of neurolaw attribute to the brain or to its parts psychological properties that belong only to people; this mistake vitiates many of the claims they make. Once neurolaw is placed on a sounder conceptual footing, Pardo and Patterson claim, we will see that it...Expand abstract
- Publication status:
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
- Publisher's version
- Copyright holder:
- Neil Levy
- Copyright date:
- © The Author(s) 2014. Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Is neurolaw conceptually confused?
Views and Downloads
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record