On Responsibility in Science and Law
Abstract
I argue that responsibility and determinism are not antithetical but mutually supportive
ideas; that factors affecting responsibility, such as drugs and mental and physiological
conditions, may be the occasion for increased or decreased penalties; and that the
decision in such cases is not scientific but moral. I conclude, contra some modern
authorities, that there is no opposition between science and law.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/3392Citation
Staddon, J. (1999) On responsibility in science and law. Social Philosophy and Policy,
16, 146-174.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
John E. R. Staddon
James B. Duke Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience
Until my retirement in 2007, my laboratory did experimental research on learning and
adaptive behavior, mostly with animals: pigeons, rats, fish, parakeets. We were particularly
interested in timing and memory, feeding regulation, habituation and the ways in which
pigeons and rats adapt to reward schedules. The aim is to arrive at simple models
for learning that can help to identify the underlying neural mechanisms. I continue
to do theoretical and historical work on the power law in
Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info