3 ms·
It is good to see awareness being raised of accidental philosophical positions, sometimes unwittingly assumed through word choice. For example, I was starting
by strogonoff 4y ago
It is good to see awareness being raised of accidental philosophical positions, sometimes unwittingly assumed through word choice.
For example, I was starting to doubt whether anyone realizes that they make a leap whenever they imply physiology/biology is the cause of what happens in our consciousness (or indeed causes consciousness to happen), but entry 29 reassured me not all hope is lost (emphasis mine):
> Nevertheless, conceptualizing biological functioning as inherently more “fundamental” than (that is, causally prior to) psychological functioning, such as cognitive and emotional functioning, is misleading (Miller, 1996). The relation between biological variables and other variables is virtually always bidirectional. For example, although the magnitude of the P300 event-related potential tends to be diminished among individuals with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) compared with other individuals (Costa et al., 2000), this finding does not necessarily mean that the P300 deficit precedes, let alone plays a causal role in, ASPD. It is at least equally plausible that the personality dispositions associated with ASPD, such as inattention, low motivation, and poor impulse control, contribute to smaller P300 magnitudes (Lilienfeld, 2014).
I believe the equal likelihood of such reverse causality and its implications are severely underexplored in modern medicine.
Similarly appreciated the warning against accidentally assuming mind-body dualism (entry 40) and a fundamental point about natural sciences—that there is never definitive proof, only limited to various degrees models (entry 45).
- matheusmoreira 4y agoThis uncertainty stems from the lack of rigorous proof. Medicine these days is all about statistics and correlation. It's "we gave drug A to people with B and we observed effects C occurring D% of the time". In way too many cases there is no exact model or understanding of how things actually work, just inferences from observed effects.
- wwtrv 4y agoThat might still be preferable to coming up with theories explaining mechanisms we don't fully understand and then looking for data which might prove it. That might become especially problematic when scientists stake their entire careers on it. We might end up with situations similar the amyloid hypothesis which likely tuned out to be a dead end a huge waste time & resources.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago> coming up with theories explaining mechanisms we don't fully understand and then looking for data which might prove it Also known as the scientific method.
- thyrsus 4y agoEqually, if not more, important to the scientific method is gathering data that might disprove it.
- ImaCake 4y agoThis is a massive problem right across biology. When we talk about heritability people assume we mean causal genetics for some trait. What we actually mean is all the genetic variation that is causal and all the genetic variation that is correlated (by chance) with the trait. The latter are effectively instrumental variables that are predictive but not causal.
- abarker 4y agoThe relation is virtually always bidirectional, and often forms complex, dynamic feedback loops. Simple causal analysis can fail in such situations.