Posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 1:18:48
In reply to Re: Biopsychosocial vs Biological Reductionism, posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 23:06:17
> Should different mental illnesses be explained from different levels or should neurobiology always be the aim?
>
> Does it depend on the question?Yes, no and no.
If all there was to neurological disorders was faulty wiring/chemistry, we'd still have all the coping mechanisms and behaviors of significant co-actors in our lives and the sociocultural context in which the disorder is interpreted.
I guess I see it this way (figuratively and literally). If you wear glasses, switch to contacts, then put your glasses on with your contacts in, you realize that eyeglasses do more than magnify. Particularly if you have any level of astigmatism, they compensate. So, back to neurology -- say we perfect the science of psychopharmacology and the neurochemistry of brain function and can completely compensate for one's "biological deficits", you still have a lot of psychological work to do; intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural.
> Should we aim for explanatory pluralism?
> What is the relationship between the different levels?
> Do we want multi-level models for all of the disorders?
> Are some levels more relevant to some disorders?Since any one theory will underdetermine reality, then you can get a better model if you can find compatible theories that address different topics.
Take the favorite whipping post of science these days: evolution. Most objections I've heard against evolution violate boundary conditions. Evolution says nothing about how life began. It certainly says nothing about the formation of the earth or our solar system. It says nothing about the big band, nor does it have any escalation at the other end -- inclusive of how will life end and will the universe end as well. If you want a broader scientific explanation of the "Big Picture", you need to include other theories -- and still accept undetermintion.
Models seek their own level of explanatory power. Or, rather, we must limit our use of models to their constraints and boundaries.
Have heard of Quine, particularly in a "history of qualitative science" course. Particularly ontological relativity. Nice set up for more post-post-modern takes on Heidegger and for applying Hermeneutics to social science analytic methods.
poster:finelinebob
thread:680731
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060825/msgs/681959.html