Neuroeducation

The primary aim of this article is to critically examine the feasibility of integrating neuroscience and education from the perspective of the philosophy of education. It addresses the question of what kind of relationship between these two fields can be regarded as philosophically justifiable and educationally acceptable. This question is explored through conceptual analysis and a critical review of relevant interdisciplinary literature. Although neuroeducation has been institutionalized in several universities worldwide, it has also been criticized by philosophers of education, some of whom have dismissed it as another form of “neuromyth.” In response, this study examines major proposals for relating neuroscience and education and identifies three possible models: subservient, oppositional, and interactive. The article argues that the interactive approach provides the most defensible framework. To support this claim, it engages with key objections raised by philosophers of education concerning the epistemological and normative limits of neuroscience. Drawing on the work of Sidney Hook, Harry Broudy, and William Frankena, the study emphasizes the importance of grounding the philosophy of education in the scientific dimensions of educational practice. Through selected examples, the article illustrates how neuroscientific findings can contribute to clarifying educational aims, improving learning processes, and refining core concepts such as cognition and thought. Adopting a “soft dualism” perspective, it argues that philosophy of education necessarily involves both descriptive (“is”) and normative (“ought”) dimensions. The article concludes that neuroscience, by illuminating the descriptive aspects of learning and cognition, can meaningfully inform educational theory and practice without undermining their normative foundations.