Abstract
Flanagan asserts that my model of addiction would apply as well to sonnet writing. (I guess that means he doesn’t like it.) Yet his most interesting point is that “addiction” is an imprecise label for a cluster of distinct phenomena. I agree with him that we need to examine these distinctions, but that doesn’t negate their shared features. Neuroscience can play an important role in advancing our understanding of both commonalities and distinctions within the phenomena of addiction.
References
Flanagan, Owen. 2017. Addiction doesn’t exist, but it is bad for you. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9298-z.
Lewis, Marc. 2017. Addiction and the brain: development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
Berridge, Kent C. 2017. Is addiction a brain disease? Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9286-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. Yes, Precision is a Good thing. Reply to Flanagan. Neuroethics 10, 99–101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9317-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9317-8