4 ms·
> That's not science. Science is sometimes harder than a single test. For example, there's no blood test for autism. There's no blood test for PTSD. But my be
by tedks 12y ago
> That's not science.
Science is sometimes harder than a single test.
For example, there's no blood test for autism. There's no blood test for PTSD. But my best friend's brother took years to talk to me, and sometimes still goes into rages; one of my partners would wake up in the middle of the night convinced I was trying to kill her.
Brains, minds, reinforcement learning systems, are complicated. By entirely abstract mechanisms they can be rewired to beautiful and terrible extremes. I very much doubt that the trauma that induces PTSD depends on any pre-existing biological state to allow PTSD to take hold, nor does PTSD necessarily induce some biological state (other than the biological brain-configuration that it is obviously implemented in). PTSD seems to be the best example of the human mind's ability to learn being exploited in the same way a buffer overflow exploits a browser. Obviously something is there; it's impossible to see someone flashback and deny the condition exists; but will there ever be a blood test for PTSD, or any diagnostic test more sophisticated than something like the DSM?
Psychology is not an easy science. Like physics, it depends on reverse-engineering the rules to a complex system, but that system is the human mind, and unlike physics, which exists only at a single level, to understand the mind, we have to cross levels of abstraction, much like it would be utterly futile to try to understand a program by recording the patterns it activated on the silicon of a CPU. And worse, everybody thinks they're an expert, because everyone has N years of experience dealing with human minds.
It's easy to think that any science should have a nice, clean, reductionist, petri-dish and blood-test approach. But the universe is under no obligation to make things easy. In a sense, psychology is the hardest science, because it is simply so difficult to cross these abstraction boundaries easily.
- gress 12y agoAll this is not relevant to the fact that there is no evidence for depression being caused by a chemical imbalance.
- zaroth 12y agoNever mind a chemical balance being caused by depression!
- roguecoder 12y agoThat we can fix it by changing the chemical balance is certainly evidence in support of it being caused by a chemical balance.
- tedks 12y agoYes, the point of my post was not to argue for the serotonin hypothesis of depression. If you think that, might I suggest that you missed my point, and you should perhaps reread with an eye towards absorbing novel information and viewpoints rather than trying to classify literally everything as either on a FOR or AGAINST side in a binary argument?
- gress 12y agoYou were arguing that the absence of a blood test doesn't necessarily undermine chemical imbalance theories because of the complexity of the systems involved.
- tedks 12y ago...this is still not my point. I was not addressing chemical imbalance theories at all. Rather, I was trying to argue that the absence of a blood test doesn't make depression ascientific.
- gress 12y agoNobody is saying that depression is ascientific. The context of the thread was that chemical imbalance theories are ascientific.