The Conclusion Does Not Follow

By -
Here:

""We basically show that cocaine is a disorder of the brain, which is a big step," said Ersche. "For a lot of people, it is still a moral issue and willpower has nothing to do with the brain."

So if something is connected with the brain, it cannot be a moral issue?! Willpower has nothing to do with the brain?!

I suppose Ersche will next discover that murder is not a moral issue: it turns out it's all about the victim's heart stopping!

Comments

  1. kevin quinn9:00 AM

    Gene: I just stumbled on your blog thanks to a link in Daniel's FOST. It's great. I remember having good discussions with you years ago on the Hayek list, so this is just by way of saying hello and I will visit regularly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah2:20 PM

    Welcome, Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thomas L. Knapp5:21 PM

    I used to know a crack addict who cited the whole "it alters your neurochemistry" thing as an excuse every time he went back to using, or behaved badly pursuant to it.

    I'm not among the extremists who deny any strongly compelling physical/neurological component to "addiction," but said components do seem to get misused as excuse a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah3:46 PM

    I'm with you, Tom. Of course there is a physical component. But if that means there is no moral component, then morality does not exist at all -- everything we do has a physical component!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more