Posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 16:03:02
In reply to Um, I think you're taking it too far... » Tomatheus, posted by Racer on January 29, 2006, at 14:31:09
Racer,
I completely agree with what you're saying. And I do think that think you are correct in suggesting that I was going too far in saying that *all* studies showing evidence for genetically mediated biochemical abnormalities would need to be discredited to make a convincing argument against what is commonly referred to as the "chemical imbalance" theory. After all, if someone were to discredit all but one of the studies showing some evidence for the "chemical imbalance" theory, there would still be one study showing evidence for the theory, but it would obviously provide for a very weak argument in favor of there being a "chemical imbalance" when taken in the context of the psychiatric literature as a whole.
So, yes, I agree with the points that you made, and I certainly think that it makes more sense to explain things the way you've explained them instead of trying to get a bit overly complex when it's not really necessary.
Thanks,
Tomatheus
poster:Tomatheus
thread:603849
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060129/msgs/604222.html