Matthew Levy wrote:
>
> The definition of a word like "sociopath" is  a product of the power
> relations of our society, and therapists or other mental researchers
> cannot claim to  be above this society and  its  power relations.
>
>         One need not really even read Foucault to
> accept this, anyway ... just think about the real implications  of
> Chomsky's work.  The ideals behind the  Universal Grammar understanding of
> human intelligence says that we are all essentially equal.  Our moral and
> emotional needs may be quite different, and it is certainly possible that
> some of us are, for a variety of reasons, "screwed  up".  But
> essentially, we are all the same in our ability to think and to
> communicate.  Given this, talking about "the best minds" seems
> offensively elitist.
>
>

        Despite the fact that I am still enthusiastic about Dr. Garelli's
work, I value your analysis. Any advocacy of the scientific approach to
anarchism must be devoid of either explicit or implicit elitism. But
advocacy of the scientific method for anarchist revolution only depends
on the use of checks and balances of power that exist almost nowhere else
in society. Peer review and logical analysis are the sine qua non of
scientific objectivity and discovery of truth. Anarchists are nothing if
they are not truthseekers in the ultimate sense.

        Thus , advocacy of the use of the scientific method to reform
society is not intrinsically elitist. However, SCIENTISM, which rejects
the personal,normative and emotively ethical element IS elitist. Science
is in fact the Opposite of scientism because it recognizes the value of
dissonance in the process of discovery which is ongoing. Anarchism and
science are thus allies against scientism, which is the epistemological
equivalent of statism.

                        Howard