6 ms·

The brain is so complicated that circa 2017 A neurologist, let alone a psychiatrist, can't explain why we can look at a cup of coffee, know that it is hot, know

The brain is so complicated that circa 2017 A neurologist, let alone a psychiatrist, can't explain why we can look at a cup of coffee, know that it is hot, know how to to pick it up and balance the cup to your lips and swallow the hot fluid without burning yourself while reading a suspenseful book all at the same time. If science can't fully explain how and why that process can happen, how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old?. Even take it further, there is no process, procedure, or prescription you can write or execute to immediately mend a broken heart other than time and personal consideration.

maxmcd 9y ago
If I can't explain where the wind comes from, why there are tides, or what the sun is, I can still sail a ship. Complete understanding of all the components of a subject or system doesn't typically seem to be a requirement to do work within that system.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  The wind, tides, and sun are all real, objective physical phenomenon. The mind is not so
  - ferentchak 9y ago
    It can be debated that the wind, tides and sun are not real and only the mind is. This viewpoint usually doesn't result in computers and spaceships being created though.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Very good! This reminds me of an old zen tale: >Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      I'd like to also point out that computers and spaceships are also objectively/scientifically testable and controllable, unlike the mind. There can be no objective control group when it comes testing the subjectivity of mind.
  - atemerev 9y ago
    And what it is if not a physical phenomenon?
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Then it is metaphysical and subjective, putting it outside the realm of science.
WalterSear 9y ago
>If science can't fully explain how and why that process can happen, how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old?. They aren't. Psychiatry is often the least worst option, in a given situation. The tools are primitive, the process is not understood, and the chances of a successful response is not great. But, this has to be balanced against the cost of doing nothing at all. Additionally, many of the medications in use have been around for 50+ years, consequently have relatively well known outcomes and side effects, even if we aren't really sure how they work, or if they will in a given situation.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >many of the medications in use have been around for 50+ years Which psychiatric medications are you referring to? It seems to me that most anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and anti-psychotics have only very recently been invented.
  - psyc 9y ago
    Yes, most. But two counterexamples that readily come to mind are Haloperidol and Chlorpromazine (Thorazine) - still in widespread use.
jerf 9y ago
Along with my strong agreement with maxmcd's post, let me also point out that this isn't science. It's doctoring, which, when you really get down to it, is a form of engineering, not science. We measure success by whether the treatment works, and whether we understand the side effects and such, not whether we understand the mechanisms of the supposed cure or side effects. There is no requirement that we understand something for it to work.
- thatcat 9y ago
  For an engineer to create something that works reliably and that they can't understand would rely heavily on luck. Usually, an engineer will start with proven science and work towards a design.
  - jerf 9y ago
    That is a common myth, but it's complete bunk. There is no clean flow of "science -> knowledge -> engineering". The flow goes every which way, and there's plenty of engineering that we do without a particular knowledge of the "science". Heck, we can barely get half of Hacker News to agree that programming is a mathematical endeavor, a close equivalent to the idea. How many programmers are out there just bashing away on engineering despite not knowing the science of what they're doing? How many "cloud" developers don't understand the science papers on consensus algorithms? Yeah, their code hurts for that lack, but it still works to some extent. How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%.
    - thatcat 9y ago
      >How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%. Yea it's gotta be pretty low. I guess that's a sort of engineering by intuition that, if it lead to a working design, could then be explained with scientific theory. Still, I would expect a licensed engineer not to sign off on a design if they don't understand it theoretically because they are legally liable in a similar way to doctors.
    - 9y ago
sjg007 9y ago
Well positive reinforcement works for training animals to modify their behavior so seems likely it will work (and does) for humans.
naasking 9y ago
We don't always have to know precisely how something works to know that it works. > how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old?. By correlative study controlling for as many variables as possible, of course. How do you think science works?
qb45 9y ago
> If science can't fully explain how and why that process can happen, how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old? The answer is right there in TFA: they aren't confident and they can't "cure" them (that's a really weird word to use here, btw). They only found that some things seem to make these kids less aggressive and reduce recidivism in the first few years. They even went as far as openly admitting lack of knowledge about long-term results. > Even take it further, there is no process, procedure, or prescription you can write or execute to immediately mend a broken heart other than time and personal consideration. Oh c'mon, you certainly can't explain how the heart works so why are you so confident about time and personal consideration? :p And, btw, this one wasn't about drugs and simple routine procedures.

maxmcd 9y ago

If I can't explain where the wind comes from, why there are tides, or what the sun is, I can still sail a ship. Complete understanding of all the components of a subject or system doesn't typically seem to be a requirement to do work within that system.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
The wind, tides, and sun are all real, objective physical phenomenon. The mind is not so
- ferentchak 9y ago
  It can be debated that the wind, tides and sun are not real and only the mind is. This viewpoint usually doesn't result in computers and spaceships being created though.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Very good! This reminds me of an old zen tale: >Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    I'd like to also point out that computers and spaceships are also objectively/scientifically testable and controllable, unlike the mind. There can be no objective control group when it comes testing the subjectivity of mind.
- atemerev 9y ago
  And what it is if not a physical phenomenon?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Then it is metaphysical and subjective, putting it outside the realm of science.

WalterSear 9y ago

>If science can't fully explain how and why that process can happen, how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old?. They aren't. Psychiatry is often the least worst option, in a given situation. The tools are primitive, the process is not understood, and the chances of a successful response is not great. But, this has to be balanced against the cost of doing nothing at all. Additionally, many of the medications in use have been around for 50+ years, consequently have relatively well known outcomes and side effects, even if we aren't really sure how they work, or if they will in a given situation.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>many of the medications in use have been around for 50+ years Which psychiatric medications are you referring to? It seems to me that most anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and anti-psychotics have only very recently been invented.
- psyc 9y ago
  Yes, most. But two counterexamples that readily come to mind are Haloperidol and Chlorpromazine (Thorazine) - still in widespread use.

jerf 9y ago

Along with my strong agreement with maxmcd's post, let me also point out that this isn't science. It's doctoring, which, when you really get down to it, is a form of engineering, not science. We measure success by whether the treatment works, and whether we understand the side effects and such, not whether we understand the mechanisms of the supposed cure or side effects. There is no requirement that we understand something for it to work.

thatcat 9y ago
For an engineer to create something that works reliably and that they can't understand would rely heavily on luck. Usually, an engineer will start with proven science and work towards a design.
- jerf 9y ago
  That is a common myth, but it's complete bunk. There is no clean flow of "science -> knowledge -> engineering". The flow goes every which way, and there's plenty of engineering that we do without a particular knowledge of the "science". Heck, we can barely get half of Hacker News to agree that programming is a mathematical endeavor, a close equivalent to the idea. How many programmers are out there just bashing away on engineering despite not knowing the science of what they're doing? How many "cloud" developers don't understand the science papers on consensus algorithms? Yeah, their code hurts for that lack, but it still works to some extent. How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%.
  - thatcat 9y ago
    >How many programmers are reading papers with any routineness in their field? Non-zero, but nowhere near 100%. Or even 50%. Yea it's gotta be pretty low. I guess that's a sort of engineering by intuition that, if it lead to a working design, could then be explained with scientific theory. Still, I would expect a licensed engineer not to sign off on a design if they don't understand it theoretically because they are legally liable in a similar way to doctors.
  - 9y ago

sjg007 9y ago

Well positive reinforcement works for training animals to modify their behavior so seems likely it will work (and does) for humans.

naasking 9y ago

We don't always have to know precisely how something works to know that it works. > how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old?. By correlative study controlling for as many variables as possible, of course. How do you think science works?

qb45 9y ago

> If science can't fully explain how and why that process can happen, how can psychiatry or psychology be so confident that they can determine how to cure or treat psychopathy at 3-or-4 years old? The answer is right there in TFA: they aren't confident and they can't "cure" them (that's a really weird word to use here, btw). They only found that some things seem to make these kids less aggressive and reduce recidivism in the first few years. They even went as far as openly admitting lack of knowledge about long-term results. > Even take it further, there is no process, procedure, or prescription you can write or execute to immediately mend a broken heart other than time and personal consideration. Oh c'mon, you certainly can't explain how the heart works so why are you so confident about time and personal consideration? :p And, btw, this one wasn't about drugs and simple routine procedures.