Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Yes, Precision is a Good thing. Reply to Flanagan

Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 17 January 2017

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Flanagan, Owen. 2017. Addiction doesn’t exist, but it is bad for you. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9298-z.

  2. Lewis, Marc. 2017. Addiction and the brain: development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.

  3. Berridge, Kent C. 2017. Is addiction a brain disease? Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9286-3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9317-8

Keywords

Navigation