>> In order to fully test this theory, we still need to do a lot of
work. The specific genes involved must be identified. It is a theory
that may be controversial and perhaps unpopular among those who
believe that the cause of autism is largely or totally environmental.
But controversy is not a reason not to test it - systematically, as
we might say.<<
Ted: > This overlooks the possibility that investigating things "systematically" in this sense may ignore essential features of the phenomena being investigated. <
I think that SBC was being a tad ironic at the end. But you are right that statistical methods often leave out essential features of phenomena (i.e., what's called "random error").
> For instance, as I've pointed out before, the general idea of "determinism" underpinning the approach embodies a specific corrigible ontology having no logical space for self-determination and final causation. <
I think that this is a mistake: using a systematic approach does not necessarily imply determinism. Just because, say, someone believes in systematic use of statistical methods doesn't mean that he or she doesn't see limits to their use. The room for self-determination and final causation may easily exist outside of those limits.
(Many argue that there is no such thing as "free will," i.e., self-determination and final causation. But I'll leave that aside.)
>The associated incapacity for "empathy" is then an incapacity for
understanding phenomena, such as autism, in which self-determination
and final causation may play an essential role.<
I don't see autism as involving any more self-determination or final causation than does non-autism. That is, people don't _choose_ to be autistic. Autism is a neurological problem that results from a mixture of genetics, prenatal environment, upbringing, and the natural environment.
(There is a dynamic dimension. With the right kind of intervention, someone can learn to deal with his or her autism better. This can raise self-confidence, making it even easier to deal with autistic deficits. However, as far as I can tell, no-one has ever reported a true "cure." There is an increasing percentage of people with autism who have learned to live with it, but their autism hasn't gone away.)
It's absolutely true that many people choose to fight their autism (though usually factors external to their consciousness play a big role). They shouldn't be treated as objects, mere statistics, as many medical professionals and social scientists are wont to do. But it is also a mistake to ignore the _objective_ aspects of the illness.
BTW, I think that there's a useful lesson to be drawn from SBC's distinction between "systematic" and "empathic" thinking. That is, both are needed. We need to synthesize them. This likely would involve more than one person cooperating.
> Neoclassical economics is "systematic" in the same "autistic" sense. <
See my article in Edward Fullbrook's THE CRISIS IN ECONOMICS.
> So is much else, e.g. the treatment of the motivation behind suicide bombings as an instrumentally rational strategy where "rational strategy" is understood in terms of "game theory" (an area of study where incapacity for entering empathetically into the motives and feelings of others - e.g. John Nash - is a prerequisite for rather than a barrier to "success"). <
I don't think lacking empathy is a prerequisite in GT any more than in other social science.
> This general approach to strategic thinking (in the form of the Revolution in Military Affairs) apparently appeals to some neo-conservatives . It would make psychological (though not logical) sense if these tended to be the same neo-conservatives attracted to the ideas of Leo Strauss. <
I dunno. The folks who analyze 911 in terms of simple instrumental rationality aren't necessarily worse than those who blame "Arab culture" or "Islam." The latter don't seem oriented toward systematic thinking.
[*] from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/466454.html:
>Simon B-C is also the cousin of Sasha Baron-Cohen who is better known
as Ali G.. (useless factette for you there!)<
--
Jim Devine
"The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does
on weather forecasters." -- Anon.