DERECHO, NEUROCIENCIA Y NEURODERECHO. UN ALEGATO A FAVOR DEL MÉTODO SOCRÁTICO
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/acfs.v57i.25235Keywords:
Neuroscience, Neurolaw, Debate, Socratic MethodAbstract
This work focuses on the growing interplay between neuroscience and law by outlining issues of criminal responsibility and within the broader framework of epistemological interactions among different fields of knowledge. It illustrates the opportunity to have a peculiar “debate” or dialogue among the considered branches of science and in the single domain of neurolaw. Then, this paper presents the Socratic method as a specific dialectical approach to rationally guide these epistemological connections, to favour the critical comparison of heterogeneous perspectives, and thus to spotlight fertile common spaces where new interdisciplinary knowledge is reachable. Finally, the article considers significant stances in the neurolaw debate to show that, in so far as they are grounded on dialectics and refutation, they can be seen as strong manifestations of a Socratic dialogue. Hence, leveraging this practice, even into the legal systems there is room for neuroscientific evidence and contributions, although this entails a dash of “neuromodesty”, critical thinking, and a plea for the Socratic method.
Downloads
References
Berti, E. (1987). Contraddizione e dialettica: negli antichi e nei moderni. Palermo: L’Epos società editrice.
Cavalla, F. (1983). Della possibilità di fondare la logica giudiziaria sulla struttura del principio di non contraddizione. Saggio introduttivo. Verifiche, 1, 1: 5-38.
Cavalla, F. (2008). Retorica processo verità. Milán: FrancoAngeli.
Cloatre, E. (2016). Sociological reflections on the neurosciences. Medical Law International, 16, 3-4: 252-258. DOI: 10.1177/0968533216673448
Cloatre, E. y Pickersgill, M. (eds.) (2015). Knowledge, technology, and law. Abingdon-Nueva York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203797600
Daldoss, I. (2021). Bring It On! Debate into University. A Methodological Proposal to Foster Creative and Critical Thinking. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the Journal Scuola Democratica “Reinventing Education”, 3:359-370.
Daldoss, I. (2022). Beyond the epistemological wall. Methodological notes to deal with neurosciences’ discoveries. Sociologia del diritto, 1.
Dennett, D. C. (1984). Elbow room: the varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. Nueva York: Viking.
Dordoni, P. y Lizzola, I. (2009). Il dialogo Socratico. Una sfida per un pluralismo sostenibile. Milán: Apogeo.
Dworkin, R. (1974). Hard cases. Harvard Law Review, 88, 6: 1057-1109. DOI:10.2307/1340249
Ferrari, F. (a cura di) (2013). Teeteto. Milán: Bur.
Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1985). Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia. Evanston: Northwest University Press.
Foucault, M. (2019). Discourse and truth and parrēsia. Chicago-Londres: The University of Chicago Press.
Glannon, W. (ed.) (2015). Free Will and the Brain: Neuroscientific, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139565820
Goldstein, A. M., Morse, S. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (2003). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. In Alan M. Goldstein (ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc. DOI: 10.1002/0471264385
Goodenough, O. R. y Tucker, M. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6: 61-92. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523
Goodenough, O. R. y Tucker, M. (2011). Neuroscience basics for lawyers. Mercer Law Review, 62, 3: 945-958.
Greely, H. T. (2009). Law and the revolution in neuroscience: An early look at the field. Akron Law Review, 42, 3: 687-716.
Greely, H. T. y Farahany, N. A. (2019). Neuroscience and the criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology, 2: 21.1-21.21. DOI: 10.1146/annurevcriminol-011518-024433
Greene, J. y Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1451: 1775-1785. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546
Ibáñez, A., Sedeño, L. y García, A. M. (eds.) (2017a). Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5
Ibáñez, A., Sedeño, L. y García, A. M. (eds.) (2017b). Exploring the Borderlands of Neuroscience and Social Science. In Agustín Ibáñez, Lucas Sedeño y Adolfo M. García (eds.), Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_1
Jones, O. D., Marois, R., Farah, M. J. y Greely, H. T. (2013). Law and neuroscience. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 45: 17624-17630. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3254-13.2013
Kane, R. (ed.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
List, C. (2019). Why Free Will is Real. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Luhmann, N. [1974](1978). Rechtssystem und Rechtsdogmatik. Traduzione italiana Sistema giuridico e dogmatica giuridica. Bolonia: Il Mulino.
Luhmann, N. [1984](1995). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. English translation Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In Felix R. Geyer y Johannes van der Zouwen (eds.), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-steering Systems. Londres: Sage Publications.
Montanari, F. [1995](2003). Vocabolario della lingua greca. Turín: Loescher Editore.
Moore, M. S. (2020). Mechanical Choices: The Responsibility of the Human Machine. Nueva York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190863999.001.0001
Morse, S. J. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 2: 397-412.
Morse, S. J. (2007a). Criminal responsibility and the disappearing person. Cardozo Law Review, 28, 6: 2545-2576.
Morse, S. J. (2007b). The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 2: 203-220.
Morse, S. J. (2008). Determinism and the Death of Folk Psychology: Two Challenges to Responsibility from Neuroscience. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 9: 1-36.
Morse, S. J. (2014). The status of neurolaw: A plea for current modesty and future, cautious optimism. Court review, 50, 2: 94-103.
Morse, S. J. (2021). Internal and external challenges to culpability. Arizona State Law Journal, 53, 2: 617-654.
Nadelhoffer, T. A. (ed.) (2013). The Future of Punishment. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, L. (1949). Socratic method and critical philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pettit, P. (2002). Rules, Reasons, and Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pickersgill, M. y Van Keulen, I. (eds.) (2011). Sociological reflections on the neurosciences. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Ross, A. [1953](2019). Om ret og retfærdighed. English translation On law and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198716105.001.0001
Roussos, A., Braun, M., Aufenacker, S. y Olivera, J. (2017). Psychotherapy and social neuroscience: Forging links together. In Agustín Ibáñez, Lucas Sedeño y Adolfo M. García (eds.), Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_13
Salles, A. y Evers, K. (2017). Social neuroscience and neuroethics: A fruitful synergy. In Agustín Ibáñez, Lucas Sedeño y Adolfo M. García (eds.), Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_22
Sommaggio, P. (2012). Contraddittorio Giudizio Mediazione. La danza del demone mediano. Milán: FrancoAngeli.
Sommaggio, P. (2016). Philosophy, law & society: Seven simple samples. Padua: libreria universitaria.it edizioni.
Sommaggio, P. (2020). Nuove strategie per la formazione di un giurista socratico. In Paolo Moro (a cura di), Insegnare diritto ed economia: metodi e prospettive della didattica giuridica ed economica. Milán: FrancoAngeli.
Sommaggio, P. y Daldoss, I. (2020). The Graphic Representation of Education. Architectures and Models. Teoria e Critica della Regolazione Sociale / Theory and Criticism of Social Regulation, 1, 20: 179-198. DOI: doi.org/10.7413/19705476025
Sommaggio, P. y Tamanini, C. (2019). The Project ‘A suon di parole - Il gioco del contraddittorio’. An Educational Game to Disseminate the Culture of Contradictory Opposition in Italian High School Debates. Scuola democratica, 10, 4: 175-188. DOI: 10.12828/96369
Sommaggio, P. y Tamanini, C. (a cura di) (2020). A suon di parole: il gioco del contraddittorio. Il format trentino del dibattito per l’innovazione della didattica. Milán: Mimesis.
Strawson, G. (1989). Consciousness, free will, and the unimportance of determinism. Inquiry, 32, 1: 3-27.
Vihvelin, K. (2013). Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Von Scheve, C. (2011). Sociology of neuroscience or neurosociology? In Martyn Pic kersgill e Ira Van Keulen (eds.), Sociological reflections on the neurosciences. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. DOI: 10.1108/S1057-6290(2011)0000013015.
Wallace, R. J. (1994). Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. Harvard University Press.
Watson, G. (ed.) (1982). Free will. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors are the owners of the rights to their works. ACFS requests that publication notice on ACFS is disclosed if they appear later in another place.
