Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Rev. Onan Canobite, SubGenius | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @2aff42f7 If this is accurate, and I think it is, and if we combine this with the inability for even the most highly trained experts with the best resources to always (always) be able to distinguish modified records (video, audio, text) from not-modified records, then the entire foundation of evidence-based and witness-based jurisprudence is a vapor and a mist.
▲ ▼
𒀭𒂗𒆠 | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @92892b15 

well, yeah. and we've more or less known this since the 80s. (or at least, people paying attention to the intersection of neuroscience and the legal system have)

but on the other hand, our whole legal system hinges on philosophical foundations that are pretty definitively bogus (ex., the notion of a fully independent individual with free will over their actions), and the legal system will embrace absolute pseudoscience (like blood spatter analysis) for as long as it's convenient

this is also true of pretty much every other institution, though: we all go through our lives every day pretending to believe in various kinds of lies that exist to slot us into a large complex system we have no control over
▲ ▼
Rev. Onan Canobite, SubGenius | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @2aff42f7 Here's to pretending some more preferable daily lives into becoming the predominant dreams.

:jrbd:
▲ ▼
Calvin Gaines | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 The neuroscience question is interesting, although I don't understand the science. Is it possible the concept of "an individual responsible for their actions" is practical 95% of the time? And we need special conditions for the other 5%?

I guess it's because I don't understand the alternative that I can't imagine another way of doing things.