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.
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?”