4.1 Article

Why Won't You Listen To Me? Predictive Neurotechnology and Epistemic Authority

期刊

NEUROETHICS
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12152-023-09527-0

关键词

Autonomy; Brain device; Epistemic authority; Predictive neurotechnology; Epistemic deference; Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the applications of predictive neurotechnologies in advisory devices, the ethical concerns of relying on predictive neural devices, and the risks of over-dependence on technology for users. The concept of epistemic authority is explored, and the relationship between predictive devices and users is examined.
From epileptic seizures to depressive symptoms, predictive neurotechnologies are used for a large range of applications. In this article we focus on advisory devices; namely, predictive neurotechnology programmed to detect specific neural events (e.g., epileptic seizure) and advise users to take necessary steps to reduce or avoid the impact of the forecasted neuroevent. Receiving advise from a predictive device is not without ethical concerns. The problem with predictive neural devices, in particular advisory ones, is the risk of seeing one's autonomous choice supplanted by the predictions instead of being supplemented by it. For users, there is a potential shift from being assisted by the system to being over-dependent on the technology. In other terms, it introduces ethical issues associated with epistemic dependency. In this article, we examine the notion of epistemic authority in relation to predictive neurotechnologies. Section 1 of our article explores and defines the concept of epistemic authority. In section 2, we illustrate how predictive devices are best conceived of as epistemic authorities and we explore the subject-device epistemic relationship. In section 3, we spell out the risk of harms interconnected with epistemic deferral. We conclude by stressing a set of preliminary measures to prepare users for the authoritative nature of predictive devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据