Abstract

Recently, a number of disciplines have emerged, which are all characterized by the prefix "neuro+" added to the name of a traditional discipline from the fields of social sciences or humanities. One of these disciplines is "neuro-law". There are several reasons for being skeptical about these supposedly new disciplines. In this paper, four of these reasons are treated in detail, leading to the conclusion that, even assuming that mental functions can be localized with precision in the brain, this does not mean that they can be explained.