I like your point about applied philosophy with regards to
Science; quite true. [I like the Sciences a lot, but prefer the
impact of Engineering on Civilization. Engineering has been
happening for since the beginning of humanity, quite
successfully, and only needs heuristics to function, nothing
more, although some math and theory *is* quite nice, yet they
can equally use words).
Oh i don't care much for the current court system either for a
number of reasons but there's great danger in excessive
application of a singular outlook upon any human system (or in
the creation of a human system) in my opinion (this is a bias of
mine), even this very outlook I have right now. [because
sometimes excess *is* good as well]
Dr. Eagleman has had a lot of influence lately as he gives a lot
of excellent talks that are quite convincing and I enjoy
listening to his explanations of how he sees things from his
perspective.
[1]
http://singularityhub.com/.../the-coming-era-of-brain.../
But can you see the danger?
I lean towards utilizing neuroscience with many explanations of
things as "backup" evidence for claims... but the field is *far
too immature* for us to replace existing systems of justice. A
singular perspective (this is our interpretation of brain scan
based upon our current philosophies of mind within neuroscience
therefore it is not the guy's fault really and he is not
responsible for his crimes) - is a slippery road we're heading
down, nodding "yes yes, about time" all the way.
We want something we can rest on and say: Ok, good, Got it. Read
this chart, and we're done here. Problem solved now and forever.
Dangerous way of thinking. Singular perspective with much
popularity can lead to unintended consequences if it's being
used to *replace* something existing entirely. Unforseen
consequences of enthusiasm.
But I'm biased: I find myself nodding excessively "YES YES YES"
to things involving neuro and cognitive science.
Anytime I find myself nodding yes too many times, I have to ask,
"Where is the fatal flaw?" "What's being assumed here?" "Where
am I wrong in agreeing?"
My agreement gets in the way. It "make sense". So, why might I
be wrong?
I'll spell it out in a second but ask it yourself - consider it
a challenge, "What are the dangers of the Scientific Method
replacing the court system?" "What are the dangerous of
statistical analysis when applied to humans?" "What is wrong
with an externalist perspective having absolute authority over
issues of morality?"
References
Visible links
1.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/29/the-coming-era-of-brain-based-law-through-the-eyes-of-david-eagleman-video/
