Uncertainty Promotes Neuroreductionism: A Behavioral Online Study on Folk Psychological Causal Inference from Neuroimaging Data

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Increased efforts in neuroscience try to understand mental disorders as brain disorders. In the present study, we investigate how common a neuroreductionist inclination is among highly educated people. In particular, we shed light on implicit presuppositions of mental disorders little is known about in the public, exemplified here by the case of body integrity dysphoria (BID) that is considered a mental disorder for the first time in ICD-11. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Identically graphed, simulated data of mind-brain correlations were shown in 3 contexts with presumably different presumptions about causality. 738 highly educated lay people rated plausibility of causality attribution from the brain to mind and from mind to the brain for correlations between brain structural properties and mental phenomena. We contrasted participants’ plausibility ratings of causality in the contexts of commonly perceived brain lesion-induced behavior (aphasia), behavior-induced training effects (piano playing), and a newly described mental disorder (BID). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The findings reveal the expected context-dependent modulation of causality attributions in the contexts of aphasia and piano playing. Furthermore, we observed a significant tendency to more readily attribute causal inference from the brain to mind than vice versa with respect to BID. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In some contexts, exemplified here by aphasia and piano playing, unidirectional causality attributions may be justified. However, with respect to BID, we critically discuss presumably unjustified neuroreductionist inclinations under causal uncertainty. Finally, we emphasize the need for a presupposition-free approach in psychiatry.

Enhancing the efficacy of climate change litigation: how to resolve the ‘fair share question’ in the context of international human rights law

The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a State's fair share of the global burden of mitigating climate change has undermined the ability of domestic climate change litigation to bring about emissions reductions which are collectively capable of meeting the goal of the Paris Agreement. When confronted with challenges to the adequacy of States' mitigation efforts, domestic courts have also drawn on States' international human rights law obligations. This paper argues that when applying these obligations, the uncertainty surrounding the fair share question must be resolved so as to ensure individual mitigation obligations which are collectively consistent with the Paris Agreement. The analysis focuses on the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and outlines how general principles of law applicable in situations involving causal uncertainty could be invoked to address the fair share question.

Structure, Function, and Tort Law

A popular view among tort theorists is that an explanation of tort law must take account its “structure,” since this structure constitutes the law’s “self-understanding.” This view is used to both criticize competing functional accounts of tort law, especially economic ones, that are said to ignore tort law’s structure, and, more constructively, as a basis for explaining various tort doctrines. In this essay, I consider this argument closely and conclude that it is faulty. To be valid, one needs a non-question begging way of identifying the essence of tort law. I argue that law’s “self-understanding” can only make sense if it means the understanding of certain people. Examining those, I conclude that the claim of structuralists is false, for there are many people who take its function to be central. I then further show that if one wishes to understand the development of tort law’s doctrine one must take both structure and function into account. I demonstrate this claim by examining the development of the doctrine dealing with causal uncertainty and vicarious liability.

CAUSAL UNCERTAINTY: ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION IN TORT LAW

The causal link between the tortfeasor’s unlawful act and the resulting damage is an essential element of tort liability. There are situations in tort law practice where singular damage has more than one potential cause, so it is important to determine which one is legally relevant. In those situations, it is hard for the claimant to identify the tortfeasor. Moreover, proving the causal link is difficult or almost impossible. On the contrary, the tortfeasor can successfully object that the damage cannot be attributed to him/her. European courts and doctrine have developed theories about alternative causation firstly by addressing asbestos litigation. This paper presents solutions from English, Belgian, French, German and Dutch tort law. Although they all strive for the same goal - fair compensation, the diversity of methods and outcomes is surprising. The end of the paper is devoted to the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL), where optimal suggestions on how to overcome causal uncertainty are presented.

Responding to Causal Uncertainty Through Abstract Thinking

The need to understand causality is a powerful motivator. As a result, causal uncertainty, or the sense of not knowing why something happened, can lead to negative psychological consequences and thus activate cognitive processes that can help reduce causal uncertainty. Here, we review the literature that focuses on the relationship between causal uncertainty and abstract thinking. Research shows that causal uncertainty spontaneously motivates people to think more abstractly. This cognitive process has important implications in other domains, such as communication and leadership. For example, when individuals tune in to others on social media during times of causal uncertainty, they prefer more abstract messages, especially when those messages come from socially prominent sources (e.g., leaders). Furthermore, research shows that abstract thinking reduces causal uncertainty by simplifying how causal relationships are cognitively represented. We discuss how these findings relate to previous research and propose directions for future research on the basis of remaining questions.