4 ms·
The article is prefaced with: "Epistemic status: wild speculation." It seems like we rather do need more theorizing, because we don't currently have a theoretic
by roflc0ptic 9y ago
The article is prefaced with: "Epistemic status: wild speculation." It seems like we rather do need more theorizing, because we don't currently have a theoretical description of depression that leads us to solutions. I know I've also seen him write about the possibility that depression is a set of interrelated diseases that look the same, and talked frankly about the inefficacy of treatments.
It's a fairly ungenerous read that would lead you to imply he's failing in some professional obligation. It's like discussing murder - how often do you need to state that you think murder is A Very Bad Thing? Do oncologists need to talk about how bad cancer is every time that they write about it in a public space? Eh.
- Avshalom 9y ago>> Do oncologists need to talk about how bad cancer is every time that they write about it in a public space? Eh. They would if a surprisingly large portion of the public believed cancer didn't actually exist.
- SilasX 9y ago"How dare you allow your malignant cells to unboundedly replicate! What would your mother say?"
- quantumhobbit 9y agoHe highlights the speculative nature of the theory quite frequently within the article. It would take pretty poor reading comprehension or deliberate misreading to conclude that he was presenting established scientific facts.