In Van den Hoven (ed.), Responsible Innovation Volume II: Concepts, Approaches, Applications. Springer (forthcoming)

John Danaher
University College, Galway
Memory Detection Tests (MDTs) are a general class of psychophysiological tests that can be used to determine whether someone remembers a particular fact or datum. The P300 MDT is a type of MDT that relies on a presumed correlation between the presence of a detectable neural signal (the P300 “brainwave”) in a test subject, and the recognition of those facts in the subject’s mind. As such, the P300 MDT belongs to a class of brain-based forensic technologies which have proved popular and controversial in recent years. With such tests increasingly being proffered for use in the courtroom — to either support or call into question testimony — it would behoove the legal system to have some systematic framework for ensuring that they are used responsibly. In this paper, I defend one such framework for ensuring that this is the case: the legitimacy enhancing test. According to this test, it is appropriate to make use of technologies such as the P300 MDT whenever doing so would (probably) enhance the legitimacy of the trial. I argue that this test addresses tensions between scientific and legal norms of evidence, and exhibits a number of additional virtues including unification, simplicity and flexibility. Although the test is defended by considering the example of the P300 MDT, its significance is much broader than that. If it has the virtues I claim for it, it should provide a general framework for the responsible use of technologies, and the responsible innovation of social epistemic systems.
Keywords Democratic Legitimacy  Authority and Legitimacy  Scientific Evidence  Philosophy of Law  Philosophy of Evidence  Neuroethics  Lie Detection
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.Christin List & Robert E. Goodin - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3):277–306.
Pure Epistemic Proceduralism.Fabienne Peter - 2008 - Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 5 (1):33-55.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Need for Epistemic Enhancement.John Danaher - 2013 - Law, Innovation and Technology 5 (1):85-112.
Democratic Legitimacy and Proceduralist Social Epistemology.Fabienne Peter - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):329-353.
Context Updating and the P300.Emanuel Donchin & Michael G. H. Coles - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):152-154.
Legitimacy is Not Authority.Jon Garthoff - 2010 - Law and Philosophy 29 (6):669-694.
Equality and Legitimacy.Wojciech Sadurski - 2008 - Oxford University Press.
Novel Evidence and Severe Tests.Deborah G. Mayo - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (4):523-552.


Added to PP index

Total views
418 ( #15,794 of 2,350,048 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #15,079 of 2,350,048 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes