589,631 research outputs found

    The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement

    Get PDF
    A movement dedicated to applying neuroscience to traditional philosophical problems and using philosophical methods to illuminate issues in neuroscience began about twenty-five years ago. Results in neuroscience have affected how we see traditional areas of philosophical concern such as perception, belief-formation, and consciousness. There is an interesting interaction between some of the distinctive features of neuroscience and important general issues in the philosophy of science. And recent neuroscience has thrown up a few conceptual issues that philosophers are perhaps best trained to deal with. After sketching the history of the movement, we explore the relationships between neuroscience and philosophy and introduce some of the specific issues that have arise

    Connecting Levels of Analysis in Educational Neuroscience: A Review of Multi-level Structure of Educational Neuroscience with Concrete Examples

    Get PDF
    In its origins educational neuroscience has started as an endeavor to discuss implications of neuroscience studies for education. However, it is now on its way to become a transdisciplinary field, incorporating findings, theoretical frameworks and methodologies from education, and cognitive and brain sciences. Given the differences and diversity in the originating disciplines, it has been a challenge for educational neuroscience to integrate both theoretical and methodological perspective in education and neuroscience in a coherent way. We present a multi-level framework for educational neuroscience, which argues for integration of multiple levels of analysis, some originating in brain and cognitive sciences, others in education, as a roadmap for the future of educational neuroscience with concrete examples in moral education

    A Glimpse Inside the Brain’s Black Box: Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Criminal Sentencing

    Get PDF
    This Article begins by discussing what neuroscience and the smaller associated field of study, neuropsychology, are and what they can tell us about an individual. It then recounts a brief history of sentencing in the United States. Additionally, it expounds on how the legal system currently utilizes neuroscience in the courts, noting specifically the ways in which neuroscience can be presented during the sentencing phase of trial. Finally, it discusses the use of neuroscience as a mitigating factor during sentencing and how judges can use neuroscience to combat their implicit biases

    The Neuroscience Information Framework: A Data and Knowledge Environment for Neuroscience

    Get PDF
    With support from the Institutes and Centers forming the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research, we have designed and implemented a new initiative for integrating access to and use of Web-based neuroscience resources: the Neuroscience Information Framework. The Framework arises from the expressed need of the neuroscience community for neuroinformatic tools and resources to aid scientific inquiry, builds upon prior development of neuroinformatics by the Human Brain Project and others, and directly derives from the Society for Neuroscience’s Neuroscience Database Gateway. Partnered with the Society, its Neuroinformatics Committee, and volunteer consultant-collaborators, our multi-site consortium has developed: (1) a comprehensive, dynamic, inventory of Web-accessible neuroscience resources, (2) an extended and integrated terminology describing resources and contents, and (3) a framework accepting and aiding concept-based queries. Evolving instantiations of the Framework may be viewed at http://nif.nih.gov, http://neurogateway.org, and other sites as they come on line


    Get PDF
    This Foreword provides an overview of Criminal Behavior and the Brain: When Law and Neuroscience Collide, a symposium hosted by the Fordham Law Review and cosponsored by the Fordham Law School Neuroscience and Law Center. While the field of neuroscience is vast—generally constituting “the branch of the life sciences that studies the brain and nervous system”— this symposium focused on the cutting-edge ties between neuroscience evidence and the different facets of criminal law. Such an intersection invited commentary from an expert group on a wide span of topics, ranging from the historical underpinnings between law and neuroscience to the treatment of young adults to the different roles of neuroscience in the context of sentencing, expert testimony, defenses, prediction, punishment, and rehabilitation, as well as the civil and criminal divide. These diverse subjects have an overarching theme in common: each pertains in some way to the criminal justice system’s effort to punish or rehabilitate more fairly and effectively

    How Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Differ in Their Use of Neuroscience Evidence

    Get PDF
    Much of the public debate surrounding the intersection of neuroscience and criminal law is based on assumptions about how prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their use of neuroscience evidence. For example, according to some commentators, the defense’s use of neuroscience evidence will abdicate criminals of all responsibility for their offenses. In contrast, the prosecution’s use of that same evidence will unfairly punish the most vulnerable defendants as unfixable future dangers to society. This “double- edged sword” view of neuroscience evidence is important for flagging concerns about the law’s construction of criminal responsibility and punishment: it demonstrates that the same information about the defendant can either be mitigating or aggravating depending on who is raising it. Yet empirical assessments of legal decisions reveal a far more nuanced reality, showing that public beliefs about the impact of neuroscience on the criminal law can often be wrong. This Article takes an evidence-based and multidisciplinary approach to examining how courts respond to neuroscience evidence in capital cases when the defense presents it to argue that the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime was below the given legal requisite due to some neurologic or cognitive deficiency