3 ms·

> There are no known physical or chemical tests for depression. The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. It is true that so far, we don't have p

by maratc 5y ago

> There are no known physical or chemical tests for depression. The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. It is true that so far, we don't have physical or chemical tests for depression. This doesn't prove that the chemistry or the brains or neurotransmitters are functioning the same way in depressed and non-depressed people, it just says the science still can't tell.

Sharlin 5y ago
Yes, but for now what we call "depression" is those patient-reported symptoms – it cannot be any other way because at the neurochem level there may not even be any single thing that could be called "depression"! The term may not be useful except for denoting a certain syndrome, ie. a set of symptoms. Just like there's no single thing that causes the upper respiratory syndrome that we call "common cold".
pessimizer 5y ago
Which is entirely irrelevant. The relevant part is that depression is diagnosed based on reported symptoms, not physically detected. The fact that it is not physically detected is not evidence that it can't possibly be physically detected, just a statement that it isn't.
- maratc 5y ago
  My issue with TLA is that it states that "There is no depression Gremlin". I disagree: I think that there may be depression Gremlin, we're just unable to reliably discover it yet.
  - learc83 5y ago
    The point isn’t that depression has no biological cause. The point is that there are probably numerous biological causes. To strain the analogy, there are probably dozens of different depression gremlins. Maybe even a depression goblin, and a depression troll. Saying that you have “depression” doesn’t give you an understanding of what’s causing it. We have a baby with colic. What does that mean? It means the baby cries 3 hours per day for 3 days a week for at least 3 weeks with no other explanation. That’s it. It’s not something you can point to and say oh that explains it. That’s the cause. It literally just means there is no explanation.

by maratc 5y ago

Sharlin 5y ago

Yes, but for now what we call "depression" is those patient-reported symptoms – it cannot be any other way because at the neurochem level there may not even be any single thing that could be called "depression"! The term may not be useful except for denoting a certain syndrome, ie. a set of symptoms. Just like there's no single thing that causes the upper respiratory syndrome that we call "common cold".

pessimizer 5y ago

Which is entirely irrelevant. The relevant part is that depression is diagnosed based on reported symptoms, not physically detected. The fact that it is not physically detected is not evidence that it can't possibly be physically detected, just a statement that it isn't.

maratc 5y ago
My issue with TLA is that it states that "There is no depression Gremlin". I disagree: I think that there may be depression Gremlin, we're just unable to reliably discover it yet.
- learc83 5y ago
  The point isn’t that depression has no biological cause. The point is that there are probably numerous biological causes. To strain the analogy, there are probably dozens of different depression gremlins. Maybe even a depression goblin, and a depression troll. Saying that you have “depression” doesn’t give you an understanding of what’s causing it. We have a baby with colic. What does that mean? It means the baby cries 3 hours per day for 3 days a week for at least 3 weeks with no other explanation. That’s it. It’s not something you can point to and say oh that explains it. That’s the cause. It literally just means there is no explanation.