I was really enjoying this article until I read the last three sentences. They turn a well-deserved criticism of Al-Rodhan into a strawman attack on neuroscience. How can Al-Rodhan, a virtual unknown, be taken as an example of how neuroscience can be applied to philosophy? Good counter-examples abound. Take Daniel Dennet's excellent book “Consciousness Explained”, a good example of how a philosopher can productively use neuroscience. And if you are going to attack Patricia Churchland (another famous philosopher) you ought to be a bit more specific, don’t you think? You cite Antonio Damasio, who is in fact a good example of how much neuroscience can teach us about the human mind. Another neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, wrote two excellent books exploring the intersection of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy: “Human” and “Who is in charge?”. Really, those last sentences make you come across as a philosophy chauvinist. I know that you are much better than that. Do you really want to add fire to the culture war between science and philosophy?