|
Discussion: Common sense as a concept has been so subject to popular abuse that its usefulness as a real philosphic tool may have been vitiated. After all, it was "common sense" in fairly recent history that the world was flat, and the center of the universe. Much that is "common sense" is decidedly common due to its uncritical adoption by unthinking masses who prefer to be fed their certainties by authority with a spoon, but thought which is common, or even universal, is not necessarily sense - and may depend for its popularity on the fact that it is never closely examined. I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense." This is a "science" which insists, with stubborn certainty, that the coincidental presence of certain facts together establishes, ipso facto, a cause and effect relationship. Further, they can tell you in the complete absence of any foundation, which is cause, and which is effect. Take, for axample, the broadly accepted "scientific fact" that brain chemistry is a determinor of mood, emotion, and ultimately, sanity. It "stands to reason" does it not, that if depressed people show low serum levels of serotonin and and vibrant people demonstrate high levels, that increasing serotonin will elevate mood, no? We must not brook any argument on this point. Sir KarlPopper? gives us a clue, however, as to how we may determine the reliability of the root assumption here. Under his criteria of falsifiability, we can disprove the entire theory if we can show that one instance of it is false. Let us turn, then, to recent empirical work with persons diagnosed with clinical depression. In a double-blind study, four groups of depressed persons are followed over time. One group is untreated. One group is given SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) to increase their serum levels of serotonin. Another group is prescribed exercise, and another is given both exercise and drugs. Recurrence of depression is highest in the group taking drugs. It is very nearly as high in the group taking drugs and exercise. It is significantly lower in the group receiving no treatment and lowest by an order of magnitude in the group prescribed exercise alone. Common sense tells us what to think of these experimental results. So does Popper. "Scientific Authority," however will not waver from the initial premise. Biochemistry of the brain determines mood. Function follows form. We just have to keep poking about until we find the right chemicals and all question of the veracity of biochemical brain theory will be erased. It's only common sense. -- AyeSpy |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)