First of all, the degrees of relevance of publications to neuroethical research are measured by the connection strengths between the subject categories or topic prototypes. The connection strengths between subject categories or topic prototypes depend upon the numbers of shared publications. The numbers of shared publications can be explained by the degrees of overlap of content, methodology, or both. The degrees of overlap of content, methodology, or both, in turn, indicate the probabilities that publications will prove fruitful for neuroethical research. In short, the degrees of relevance of publications to neuroethical research, as measured by the connection strengths between subject categories or topic prototypes, indicate the probabilities that publications will prove fruitful for neuroethical research.
Based on my results, Churchland’s publication has high degrees of relevance to research that can be assimilated to the subject categories or topic prototypes Moral Theory, Neuroimaging, Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, or Social and Economic Neuroscience because of the strong connections between the subject category or topic prototype Moral Theory and the subject categories or topic prototypes Neuroimaging, Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, and Social and Economic Neuroscience. The strong connections can be explained by the high numbers of shared publications. The high numbers of shared publications can be explained by the high degrees of overlap of either content, methodology, or both.[28] This, in turn, indicates high probabilities that Churchland’s publication will prove fruitful for research that can be assimilated to the aforementioned subject categories or topic prototypes. Conversely, Churchland’s publication has low degrees of relevance to research that can be assimilated to the subject categories or topic prototypes Addiction, Brain Death and Severe Disorders of Consciousness, Brain Stimulation, Enhancement, Legal Studies, (Medical) Research and Medicine, Molecular Neurobiology and Genetics, Neuroscience and Society, Neurosurgery, Psychiatric and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Disorders, or Psychopharmacology because of the weak connections between the subject category or topic prototype Moral Theory and the aforementioned subject categories or topic prototypes. Here are some brief theoretical considerations.
Churchland’s publication is highly relevant to research that can be assimilated to the subject category or topic prototype Economic and Social Neuroscience, suggesting that his idea of reconceiving moral decision-making in terms of PDP could prove fruitful for neuroethical research that refers to the underlying physiology of economic or social decision-making. This application might show that moral, economic, and social decision-making share important properties but differ in others. This possible result could then be fed back into neuroethical research.
Churchland’s publication is also highly relevant to research that can be assimilated to the subject category or topic prototype Neuroimaging, suggesting that his idea of reconceiving moral decision-making in terms of PDP could prove fruitful for neuroethical research that refers to imaging techniques that visualize the brain, such as cranial computed tomography (CCT), electroencephalography (EEG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) (Hildt 2012, p. 11). For example, it could be used to reconceive the classic distinction between off-track and truth-tracking processes in genealogical debunking arguments[29] that refer to fMRI research (e.g., Greene 2008 and Singer 2005). This application might show that the classic distinction is neurobiologically implausible, which would mean that arguments relying on this distinction are implausible as well. This possible result could then be fed back into neuroethical research.
Moreover, the possible (yet unrecognized) relevance of Churchland’s publication to research that can be assimilated to the subject categories or topic prototypes Addiction, Brain Death and Severe Disorders of Consciousness, Brain Stimulation, Enhancement, Legal Studies, (Medical) Research and Medicine, Molecular Neurobiology and Genetics, Neuroscience and Society, Neurosurgery, Psychiatric and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Disorders, and Psychopharmacology could have been emphasized more strongly by including keywords in the abstract and title that define the aforementioned subject categories or topic prototypes, which, in turn, could have increased the connection strengths between those subject categories or topic prototypes and the subject category or topic prototype Moral Theory. A possible outcome of this could have been the revelation of a systematic overlap of content, methodology, or both that has been neglected so far. And this possible result could then have been fed back into neuroethical research.[30]
This feedback process, in turn, can optimize NE itself and, hence, improve our pursuit of moral understanding because it can help to “produce better ethical theories […] and contribute toward the great project of better understanding ourselves” (Levy 2011, p. 8). Apparently, a recurring pattern emerges: the bottom-up approach to NE can be applied to neuroethical research, which, in turn, can led to such results that can be fed back into it, which, in turn, can optimize NE itself and, hence, improve our pursuit of moral understanding.