We are not the armchair philosophers of yesteryear.
Ironically, a big problem here is philosophical.
The autism spectrum was formed from reuniting different disorders and proposing a board neurodevelopmental category in which symptoms may vary widely from individual to individual. That was ontology informing nosology. Now we are seeking patterns again within this spectrum and finding a different number of them depending on which criteria we focus on. This is again a matter of abstract categorization, prioritizing some concepts over others, defining entities beforehand: philosophy again.
The latest study that was very popular found four categories considering age in which DSM-5 symptoms appear, and ‘cluster’ and severity of said symptoms. Those four categories still don’t explain the PDA profile or the giftedness comorbidity that seems to actually change the cognitive patterns of classic ASD such as the preference for concrete thinking and the black and white (polarized) thinking, probably because behavioral and cognitive patterns weren’t an important axis here.
Horribly said, the preliminary work in nosology is philosophical. I guess in all sciences. We often make our minds about what we are searching for before starting to empirically searching for it; and then the findings channel another series of scrambling concepts, updating hypothesis, etc.
Funnily enough, the philosophical weight only grows when the brain is part of the enigma (entire branches of philosophy dedicated to the “mind”, the brain, etc.). Armchair philosophers’ work again so that the field work is actually well designed/directed and meaningful in the ways we want it to be.
Let’s not reduce the role philosophy has in current times, please.
I was speaking of philosophy not as it is today, but as it was - a precursor to “science” before the word even existed.
Armchair philosophers are a historical creature - they sat in their armchairs and deduced how the world works without getting up from their chairs to test any of their assumptions.
The armchair philosophers I am talking about have little to nothing in common with modern philosophers.
Ironically, a big problem here is philosophical.
The autism spectrum was formed from reuniting different disorders and proposing a board neurodevelopmental category in which symptoms may vary widely from individual to individual. That was ontology informing nosology. Now we are seeking patterns again within this spectrum and finding a different number of them depending on which criteria we focus on. This is again a matter of abstract categorization, prioritizing some concepts over others, defining entities beforehand: philosophy again.
The latest study that was very popular found four categories considering age in which DSM-5 symptoms appear, and ‘cluster’ and severity of said symptoms. Those four categories still don’t explain the PDA profile or the giftedness comorbidity that seems to actually change the cognitive patterns of classic ASD such as the preference for concrete thinking and the black and white (polarized) thinking, probably because behavioral and cognitive patterns weren’t an important axis here.
Horribly said, the preliminary work in nosology is philosophical. I guess in all sciences. We often make our minds about what we are searching for before starting to empirically searching for it; and then the findings channel another series of scrambling concepts, updating hypothesis, etc.
Funnily enough, the philosophical weight only grows when the brain is part of the enigma (entire branches of philosophy dedicated to the “mind”, the brain, etc.). Armchair philosophers’ work again so that the field work is actually well designed/directed and meaningful in the ways we want it to be.
Let’s not reduce the role philosophy has in current times, please.
I was speaking of philosophy not as it is today, but as it was - a precursor to “science” before the word even existed.
Armchair philosophers are a historical creature - they sat in their armchairs and deduced how the world works without getting up from their chairs to test any of their assumptions.
The armchair philosophers I am talking about have little to nothing in common with modern philosophers.