Why Have Elections When You Have Neuroscience?
Over at Slate, fun takedowns of some recent excesses of pop-neuroscientific imperialism from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, in which the papers' op-ed pages sing the advantages of brain scans for swing voters and candidates themselves, respectively.
My own July reason feature on how much, and how little, the current capabilities of neuroscience can guide legal thinking about the insanity defense.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the papers' op-ed pages sing the advantages of brain scans for swing voters
I imagine they will be recommending lobotomy for those whose brain scan shows more activity than "wow, Rudy has a nice tie LOL!"
I mean, really, if candidates wanted to know what voters are thinking, they could try the old fashioned way. You know, listening to them.
But I guess that's no longer in the purview of a politician, huh?
I slagged the Amen article at my blog.
Brain scans will never replace a thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed horoscope.
"imperialism" or "empiricalism"?
A link from one of the articles, lauding the virtues of snake oil:
http://tinyurl.com/ysm769