Why is Scientism deemed the HOLY GRAIL of a reasoning mind?

[Arising_uk]

... Because science has such weird things like evidence, "beyond reasonable doubt", double blind tests, repeatable test ..etch, all such weird things that the O-so-wise-and-knowledgeable philosophers doesn't have to bother with.

True, we only have reason and logic. So I suppose that'll be why we don't fall for either this scientism nor the 'new age fruitloops', but I note that a few of these appear to have science degrees and pretty much none have philosophy ones?

[HexHammer]

but I note that a few of these appear to have science degrees and pretty much none have philosophy ones?

Just a guess, but I think statisticly there are more scientists than philosophers out there, thus there automaticly must be more scientists that jump on weird bandwagons, just because one is a scientist doesn't remove the basic human instincts.
Human instinct will usually overwrite logic and reason.

[Arising_uk]

Just a guess, but I think statisticly there are more scientists than philosophers out there, thus there automaticly must be more scientists that jump on weird bandwagons, just because one is a scientist doesn't remove the basic human instincts.
Human instinct will usually overwrite logic and reason.

Hmm... but your post appeared to hint that evidence and reasonable doubt was the touchstone of the scientists training so statistics should not matter in this case, as the philosophers appear to prove.

[HexHammer]

Hmm... but your post appeared to hint that evidence and reasonable doubt was the touchstone of the scientists training so statistics should not matter in this case, as the philosophers appear to prove.

You take things as either black or white, too absolute values.

The aforementioned things like double blind tests ..etc, are also for preventing other scientists to jump to conclusions, to verify results of scientists who may lack rationallity and logic.

Look at psycopaths, they may have some defunct intelligeneces out of many either main or sub intelligences, but the rest are perfectly functioning, thus being brilliant phycisists but utterly bad motor skills and social skills.
Another aspect is "selective understanding", in sending people to war and tell them only to kill a select mass of people and be the worst mass murderes, then they can return home and be normal citizens, with good respect and manners. These values are contradicting, but as our selective understanding allows us to utterly discriminate.

..so, in one field we will apply logic and reason, whilst in another field we may be totally devoid of it.

[Arising_uk]

You take things as either black or white, too absolute values. ...

... all such weird things that the O-so-wise-and-knowledgeable philosophers doesn't have to bother with.

[HexHammer]

You take things as either black or white, too absolute values. ...

... all such weird things that the O-so-wise-and-knowledgeable philosophers doesn't have to bother with.

What?

[Arising_uk]

You appeared to have done what you accused me of?

[HexHammer]

You appeared to have done what you accused me of?

...eeeh, if you say so, sorry then.

It's just that it appears that you think of scientists as a uniform mass, with no differ in mentallity, and disregarding their variating belief in my aforementioned "holy principles".

[Arising_uk]

No apology necessary but thanks.

I think I was just responding to your uniform massing of the philosophers.

I tend to disagree with this idea that the psychopath has any perfectly functioning 'intelligence' as it allows them to believe in their pathology.

Although I take your point that we as philospher or scientist can hold contradicting beliefs I tend to think that the training of the philosopher should mean this state occurs less than in the scientist. But I also think the scientist will be better than the 'average man' in this respect as their training is as you say and the principles can be applied.

Social skills are another matter but these, I think, can also be a matter of training in how we communicate.

[HexHammer]

I tend to disagree with this idea that the psychopath has any perfectly functioning 'intelligence' as it allows them to believe in their pathology.

Interesting, it seems that psycology and neurology would contradict your statement, least that's what I conclude reading those 2 things.

In short neurons simply doesn't fire or misfire, thus you can have a selective area that are dysfunctional, whilst other areas of the brain are intact.

[Arising_uk]

Interesting, it seems that psycology and neurology would contradict your statement, least that's what I conclude reading those 2 things. ...

Well psychology you can pretty much keep but neurology is interesting. How are they defining 'intelligence' with respect to the psychopath in this matter?

In short neurons simply doesn't fire or misfire, thus you can have a selective area that are dysfunctional, whilst other areas of the brain are intact.

Have they clearly identified a relationship between 'intelligence' and psychopathy here?

Have they even defined what 'intelligence' means in this case?

As the brain appears to be a highly parallel processor( to use a metaphor) which can cope with fairly large damage without much effect in functioning.

[HexHammer]

Interesting, it seems that psycology and neurology would contradict your statement, least that's what I conclude reading those 2 things. ...

Well psychology you can pretty much keep but neurology is interesting. How are they defining 'intelligence' with respect to the psychopath in this matter?

In short neurons simply doesn't fire or misfire, thus you can have a selective area that are dysfunctional, whilst other areas of the brain are intact.

Have they clearly identified a relationship between 'intelligence' and psychopathy here?

Have they even defined what 'intelligence' means in this case?

As the brain appears to be a highly parallel processor( to use a metaphor) which can cope with fairly large damage without much effect in functioning.

I must humbly suggest that you read up on psycology and neurology, for me to answer your question fully or even just partially would span pages, any answer that is less, would be insufficient.

[Arising_uk]

Like I said, you can keep the psychology but the authors, links or any reference to the papers or books from neurology where you gained your ideas would be a helpful start for me.

[HexHammer]

Like I said, you can keep the psychology but the authors, links or any reference to the papers or books from neurology where you gained your ideas would be a helpful start for me.

..Google

[Arising_uk]

You mean I should google or that your ideas can be found with google? As whilst I love google it can be very selective in what it retrieves.

Still, so far a quick scan of some search results appears to find no clear argreement upon the definition of psychopathy nor intelligence?

So whilst I agree that behaviour can obviously be altered by changes to CNS's function and that the CNS is the major part of behaviour and perception, I still have some doubt about this idea that the psychopath has a correctly functioning 'intelligence' anywhere. Given that we have no definition of quite what either word means?