La resonancia magnética funcional es una de las técnicas de neuroimagen más difundidas en las neurociencias cognitivas. Su influencia tuvo un rol central en la configuración del aspecto experimental de este campo. Frente a esto, consideramos que su estatus como evidencia no ha sido suficientemente discutido en la literatura filosófica. En este trabajo nos centramos sobre este punto abordando el problema clásico de definir el alcance que puede tener la estrategia localizacionista en neurociencias. Atendemos al modo en que este problema (...) se manifiesta hoy, tomando algunos ejemplos recientes de abordajes neurocientíficos caracterizados por estudiar el carácter dinámico de la actividad a gran escala en el cerebro. Tomamos en cuenta un número de limitaciones que presenta la resonancia magnética funcional, distinguiendo aquellas cuyo tratamiento pone en juego problemáticas de una índole no meramente técnica. A partir del análisis de algunas maneras en que los investigadores les hacen frente, sostenemos que existe una medida importante en que este tipo de estudios de neuroimagen pueden ser orientados sobre la base de supuestos y consideraciones teóricas generales. Concluimos que esta particular permeabilidad teórica de la resonancia magnética funcional es un factor central que incide sobre su estatus como evidencia neurocientífica. (shrink)

Adolescence is a period of life during which peers play a pivotal role in decision-making. The narrative of social influence during adolescence often revolves around risky and maladaptive decisions, like driving under the influence, and using illegal substances. However, research has also shown that social influence can lead to increased prosocial behaviors and a reduction in risk-taking. While many studies support the notion that adolescents are more sensitive to peer influence than children or adults, the developmental processes that underlie this (...) sensitivity remain poorly understood. We argue that one important reason for this lack of understanding is the absence of precisely formulated models. To make a first step toward formal models of social influence during adolescence, we first identify three prominent verbal models of social influence in the literature: social motivation, reward sensitivity, and distraction. We then illustrate how these can be translated into formal models, and how such formal models can inform experimental design and help identify developmental processes. Finally, by applying our formal models to existing datasets, we demonstrate the usefulness of formalization by synthesizing different studies with seemingly disparate results. We conclude with a discussion on how formal modeling can be utilized to better investigate the development of peer influence in adolescence. (shrink)

This PhD thesis focuses on the philosophical foundations of Neuroeconomics, an innovative research program which combines findings and modelling tools from economics, psychology and neuroscience to account for human choice behaviour. The proponents of Neuroeconomics often manifest the ambition to foster radical modifications in the accounts of choice behaviour developed by its parent disciplines. This enquiry provides a philosophically informed appraisal of the potential for success and the relevance of neuroeconomic research for economics. My central claim is that neuroeconomists can (...) help other economists to build more predictive and explanatory models, yet are unlikely to foster revolutionary modifications in the economic theory of choice. The contents are organized as follows. In chapters 1-2, I present neuroeconomists’ investigative tools, distinguish the most influential approaches to neuroeconomic research and reconstruct the case in favour of a neural enrichment of economic theory. In chapters 3-7, I combine insights from neuro-psychology, economic methodology and philosophy of science to develop a systematic critique of Neuroeconomics. In particular, I articulate four lines of argument to demonstrate that economists are provisionally justified in retaining a methodologically distinctive approach to the modelling of decision making. My first argument points to several evidential and epistemological concerns which complicate the interpretation of neural data and cast doubt on the inferences neuroeconomists often make in their studies. My second argument aims to show that the trade-offs between the modelling desiderata that neuroeconomists and other economists respectively value severely constrain the incorporation of neural insights into economic models. My third argument questions neuroeconomists’ attempts to develop a unified theory of choice behaviour by identifying some central issues on which they hold contrasting positions. My fourth argument differentiates various senses of the term ‘revolution’ and illustrates that neuroeconomists are unlikely to provide revolutionary contributions to economic theory in any of these senses. (shrink)