mimudidama

How are you qualifying "psychopathic"? Don't we need both a reliable epistemology and a well developed ontology in order to conclude on the implications of material evidence? I realize that. Structural realism is the dominant perspective in the philosophy of science currently, but with something like neurological data, something so complex and particular, doesn't the fragile structure configure the result on the macro level in some way? The way all of this data is presented seems to imply that there is a definite causal mechanism being understood, which is dubious to me, because on the one level determinists like to dismantle the identity of an act and devalue whole action in favor of its constitutive parts e.g. not human making something called a choice, but a physical motion manifest some form of motion and affecting other motions in physical space. Then on another level, you guys write books like anatomy of violence which appeals to some normative valuation of ethics and qualifies criminal action based on an ethics which uses some kind of identity predicate like human, criminal, violence, disgust. It seems hypocritical to ignore epistemological and ontological contradictions like this. Why does the ethical system around scientific research so often seem to appeal to a normative, common sense ethics, while the physical research is dedicated to dismantling normative, folk visions of biological causality?

Challenging folk visions around biological causality is what you do necessarily by conducting research on underlying chemical causes surrounding action. And not challenging the relation of an ethics to an ontology is exactly what I am saying is the problem.