| Title |
The BCN Challenge to Compatibilist Free Will and Personal Responsibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-009-9054-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maureen Sie, Arno Wouters |
| Abstract |
Many philosophers ignore developments in the behavioral, cognitive, and neurosciences that purport to challenge our ideas of free will and responsibility. The reason for this is that the challenge is often framed as a denial of the idea that we are able to act differently than we do. However, most philosophers think that the ability to do otherwise is irrelevant to responsibility and free will. Rather it is our ability to act for reasons that is crucial. We argue that the scientific findings indicate that it is not so obvious that our views of free will and responsibility can be grounded in the ability to act for reasons without introducing metaphysical obscurities. This poses a challenge to philosophers. We draw the conclusion that philosophers are wrong not to address the recent scientific developments and that scientists are mistaken in formulating their challenge in terms of the freedom to do otherwise. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 4 | 9% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 33 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 27% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,415,989
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#51
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,255
of 163,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.