More simply, I personally believe I need a reason to do something mean, but I don’t need a reason to do something nice. Is binning people mean or nice? It’s definitely mean. I suggest corrections but also the possibility of redemption for offenders.
More simply, I personally believe I need a reason to do something mean, but I don’t need a reason to do something nice. Is binning people mean or nice? It’s definitely mean. I suggest corrections but also the possibility of redemption for offenders.
Separately: is life better or worse for epileptics since the creation of the concept of epilepsy-as-neurological-disorder?
Consider what reifing this concept has allowed medical science to do, that it was not so empowered to do under previous explanations for the same behavioural phenomena.
When you cleave concept-space the right way, you create a node in your schema that corresponds to something you can actually affect, through e.g. therapeutic or pharmacological interventions.
A “bin” that stays such—just something to label people with, is a wrong cut. It is a concept that does not expose something “raw” and concrete enough to actually touch.
The subject of the essay is correlation of stately statistical categories. The entire discussion remains purely in the abstract, and by this I mean the categories in question are abstract and the correlated heirarchies are abstract on every level. To take any issue with this in utility or morality would be to take issue with theoretical analysis itself. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are not intending to do that.