Disorder

[JohniJones]

I assume that whoever it is who is responsible for your words, "Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances." is not identifying a 'chemical disorder' in the sense that the chemicals are disordered but that they find that certain behaviours in certain people can be correlated consistently, identified, with serotonin levels that are of a different level than a control group that does not display these behaviours. Whether there is a causal correlation I have no idea.

My question is, in your opinion should these correlations, causal or not, have any effect upon any judgement we may or may not make with respect to the actions.

Are you saying that where there is a consistent correlation between a behaviour and the brain, then that behaviour is a disorder? (see how easy it is to postpone our real reasons).

[JohniJones]

Eclecticism (in the generic sense) is only a conceptual approach that ignores the fine issues of commensurability between schemes, in the course of selecting and relating "this" to "that". Not an overarching authority that offers a final word on identification (via having worked-out a satisfactory framework of bridging principles between various knowledge/skill enterprises). That is, quasi-absolute claims like that are often actually anchored in eclecticism, or maybe BS, and so forth.

DEscribe a chemical reaction that is disordered. Not even chemists are familiar with the term.

You originally claimed that "brain technology" has identified disorder in the brain. I personally doubt that's the case -- that the inventors and technicians made such a judgment or interpretation, but it would rather be those in other fields (medical, psychology, etc.) who made use of data their equipment yielded. At any rate, you now leap from "brain technology" to a supposed descriptive approach of chemists, exhibiting that very "eclectic" unconcern about issues of compatibility between systems, or apparently asserting that Investigative Enterprise A holds authority over Investigative Enterprise B. One discipline's ascription of 'evil' may be another's ascription of 'not liked for this or that reason' and yet another's 'who even gives a #^$% about it how it is conceived from the standpoint of affecting the life of a person'.

Which is to say, the problem or confusion is resolved by noting what is ignored by either generic eclecticism or other practical "I can't bother with the fine details and issues of commensurability among them", so such practical and commonsense BS can pursue its business/agendas.

If we are to establish the worth of an "eclectic" we need to examine its terms. I examined chemistry as one of those terms.
Eclecticism isn't a general practice, it can only be the name of a list of instances.

[Satyr]

Entropy...the universal flow, against which life resists.

[thalarch]

If we are to establish the worth of an "eclectic" we need to examine its terms. I examined chemistry as one of those terms. Eclecticism isn't a general practice, it can only be the name of a list of instances.

And such lists are possible because the instances are subsumed under a general template that they qualify as varying instantiations of. (Like: "At number-10 is is German-style housebuilding, at number-9 is Japanese-style housebuilding, etc"). Declaring it an arbitrary list does not count, since a list consisting of specific examples of eclecticism is obviously not adhering to a selection process devoid of a plan. And a list of seemingly unrelated items that was announced as having been produced using the "eclectic method" would be evidence of that very general scheme or meaning, with its quite subjective judgement-making of "what seems best".

Dictionary: eclectic method - making decisions on the basis of what seems best instead of following some single doctrine or style.

Wikipedia: Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases. It can sometimes seem inelegant or lacking in simplicity, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking.

Dictionary: eclecticism - the use or advocacy of a method involving the selection of doctrines from various systems and their combination into a unified system of ideas.

With the latter, we find a possibly practical use for this relating between or borrowing of nomenclature without a concern for compatibility between systems: The creation of new systems. Is this what you are doing -- assembling a new project by relating this to that, in which Discipline-A (brain technology???) also must genuflect to Discipline-B (chemistry), even outside the context of your supposed new scheme and its maxims? That is, why should I or these enterprises accept any claim that there is or will be a massive 'pair' jiggling forth should you strut this standard out upon the stage, which would demand our awed deference?

[JohniJones]

If we are to establish the worth of an "eclectic" we need to examine its terms. I examined chemistry as one of those terms. Eclecticism isn't a general practice, it can only be the name of a list of instances.

And such lists are possible because the instances are subsumed under a general template that they qualify as varying instantiations of. (Like: "At number-10 is is German-style housebuilding, at number-9 is Japanese-style housebuilding, etc"). Declaring it an arbitrary list does not count, since a list consisting of specific examples of eclecticism is obviously not adhering to a selection process devoid of a plan. And a list of seemingly unrelated items that was announced as having been produced using the "eclectic method" would be evidence of that very general scheme or meaning, with its quite subjective judgement-making of "what seems best".



Dictionary: eclectic method - making decisions on the basis of what seems best instead of following some single doctrine or style.

Wikipedia: Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases. It can sometimes seem inelegant or lacking in simplicity, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking.

Dictionary: eclecticism - the use or advocacy of a method involving the selection of doctrines from various systems and their combination into a unified system of ideas.

With the latter, we find a possibly practical use for this relating between or borrowing of nomenclature without a concern for compatibility between systems: The creation of new systems. Is this what you are doing -- assembling a new project by relating this to that, in which Discipline-A (brain technology???) also must genuflect to Discipline-B (chemistry), even outside the context of your supposed new scheme and its maxims? That is, why should I or these enterprises accept any claim that there is or will be a massive 'pair' jiggling forth should you strut this standard out upon the stage, which would demand our awed deference?

Eclectic forms can only be artistic or pragmatic, for these are the only forms that can list or subsume unrelated elements. Care must be taken against unifying elements in an eclectic form. The elements of both an artistic creation and a pragmatic effort aren't united by being in their eclectic presentation.

Mistakes can be made, and medicine makes these mistakes: causal relations can be summoned out of mere associations and metaphors; independent items of knowledge can be shot-gun-wedded into seeming unity; incoherences from one discipline can be grafted onto another, innocent, discipline.

The reductionist enterprise of medicine could be considered an eclectic enterprise, but it isn't because it makes the elements of that eclectic form related, when they are not related. Medicine employs an incoherent reductionism, where causal relations are summoned out of synonyms, metaphors, and mere association.