![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 11:22:23
The conversations about Freud vs. Jung vs. Adler remind me of chit-chat among connoisseurs, say, of wine. The connoisseurs choose to participate and agree among themselves as to a private vocabulary and rhetoric. They agree not to question whether wine matters. If one couldn’t care less about wine, all the talk about “black cherry and pepper notes mingled with pleasant earthy flavors and soft tannins,” and whether this wine goes with that food, is meaningless, even silly.
Freud, Jung, Adler, Rank, and all psychotherapists buy into the same vocabulary and rhetoric. Once you presume the existence of an unconscious and presume the legitimacy of any psychodynamic theory, the rest is chit-chat. By that I mean to suggest that such questioning is insufficiently distanced.
What if there is no such thing as an unconscious? Not Freud’s id, not Jung’s tribal whatever, not whatever Adler proposed, but no unconscious whatsoever, none, zero? What if it’s all just hormones and brain chemistry and genes? If that’s even potentially true, the fundamental question is not Freud vs. Jung, but Freud et alia vs. Darwin. It seems to me as an interested, screwed-up lay person, that the explanations put forth by the evolutionary psychologists are vastly superior to any psychotherapist’s. The jig is up.
Trouble is, evolutionary psychology doesn’t lead to therapies for sad, peevish people, and natural selection doesn’t give a rat about my unhappiness (except to the extent that I am too fucked-up to attract a husband and have kids).
What’s a girl to do? Tonight I will cook a lamb shank, and with it I will drink a good Merlot, with nice acidity and suppleness, pretty flavors of dark cherry and plum, and savory herbal notes on the finish.
Cheers,
Ginny
Posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 12:09:17
In reply to (Freud vs. Jung) vs. (Darwin vs. Napa Valley), posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 11:22:23
>What’s a girl to do? Tonight I will cook a lamb shank, and with it I will drink a good Merlot, with nice acidity and
suppleness, pretty flavors of dark cherry and plum, and savory herbal notes on the finish.
LOL.I think evolutionary psychology has a lot to offer in the development of therapies. It surely has had some influence on approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy, no?
As to whether there is an unconscious or is it all hormones, etc., I don't feel it has to be either/or. One is a way to try to describe how we might experience ourselves in our world. The other explains the mechanisms of how the equipment works to give us those experiences.
Posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 12:31:08
In reply to Re: (Freud vs. Jung) vs. (Darwin vs. Napa Valley), posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 12:09:17
> As to whether there is an unconscious or is it all hormones, etc., I don't feel it has to be either/or. One is a way to try to describe how we might experience ourselves in our world. The other explains the mechanisms of how the equipment works to give us those experiences.
I think it is indeed either/or. Either Freud et alia were on to a scientific truth, or they were folklorists. There's nothing per se wrong with folklore, but it should be viewed as that --literature, myth, gorgeous nonense, equivalent to astrology or religion -- and not confused with science. I have no problem with Freud as literature; I have a problem with Freud as science. When I go to a physician, I want medicine, not poetry.
Cheers,
Ginny
Posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 12:35:43
In reply to Truth vs. Diversion, posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 12:31:08
Yes, but psychological healing requires both science and art.
Posted by Aunt B on May 27, 2000, at 14:32:14
In reply to (Freud vs. Jung) vs. (Darwin vs. Napa Valley), posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 11:22:23
You probably are right about the irrelevance of these guys. Most people in Asia probably could care less about who they are. Somebody could have asked "What do you think of the full moon over the Pacific" and I would have answered. Little old ladies sometimes tire of knitting.
They are relevant insofar as they contributed to the development of today's psychoscience. People also question whether slavery is relevant to politics 130 years later, but a methodical analysis of how we got here must include an accounting for influences from the past.
Freud and Jung speculated about neurological functions that more recent studies have better identified. Homo sapiens sapiens' complex cerebral structure allows for more layers of conscious awareness. The deeper parts of our brains are more intimately connected with our actions than are the cerebral networks by which we percieve our motivations. Those deeper motivations, written as sublinquistic patterns in our thalmus and hypocampus are consistant with what was once called the unconscious.
On poetry and medicine, when I go to a physician they often recite some poem written by a pharmaceutical company to persuade me of the merits of their potions.
Posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 11:57:24
In reply to Truth vs. Diversion, posted by Ginny on May 27, 2000, at 12:31:08
> > As to whether there is an unconscious or is it all hormones, etc., I don't feel it has to be either/or. One is a way to try to describe how we might experience ourselves in our world. The other explains the mechanisms of how the equipment works to give us those experiences.
>
> I think it is indeed either/or. Either Freud et alia were on to a scientific truth, or they were folklorists. There's nothing per se wrong with folklore, but it should be viewed as that --literature, myth, gorgeous nonense, equivalent to astrology or religion -- and not confused with science. I have no problem with Freud as literature; I have a problem with Freud as science. When I go to a physician, I want medicine, not poetry.But science itself is folklore, by the same standards. Do you really believe that there are probably 6 other "dimensions" out there all collapsed and curled up into tiny "strings" whose energetic wobblings comprise what we know as quarks?
There simply is no such thing as a scientific truth.
That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Truth out there, but instead that science has no means of determining when it has touched upon the Truth of any matter. Science (with a capital S) has its own set of assumptions and its own vocabulary, just as Freud and Jung and others in the psychodynamic arena have theirs. Perhaps the foremost assumption in Science nowadays is that we work within a paradigm of falsification, not verification. If we could verify, we could find Truth. But it is axiomatic in Scientific practice that one negative instance is a refutation to any claim of truth. In doing Science, you set out to prove yourself wrong and, if you find that you cannot do so PLUS you can argue that you have also ruled out any competing hypotheses that you could think of at the time, then at best you have demonstrated strong support for your own explanation of The Way Things Are.
A fundamental mistake in the philosophy of science for the last 150 years or so has been a convolution of epistemology with ontology. To put it plainly, we think that because we have come to "know" something, that something must actually "be" as we know it. Existence outside of our minds, however you construe that construct to be, is separated from our minds by the rather tremendous gulf of sensation that exists between real-world phenomena and our cognitive processing of those phenomena. Stating that we know something to be "true" from experimental data ignores this gulf and creates a phantom reality that may or may not represent what is on the other side of the gulf.
Since they're only human, some scientists are just as prone to walk the dogma as anyone else from any field of disciplined study.
What we need to keep in mind (HAH!) is that both psychoanalytic theory and cognitive neuroscience are MODELS by which we can gain some insight on mental functioning. Models, by definition, are not the real thing. But when you know the limitations to any specific model AS WELL AS the model's strengths, you will be able to respond to, predict, control, manipulate, whatever, the phenomena described by the model to some degree of success.
Perhaps the worst dogmatic belief about Science is that it reveals more and more of the Truth as it progresses and, therefore, we're getting that much further down the Yellow Brick Road with each advance. But it is also "axiomatic" in Science to recognize that every question answered reveals two new questions that are unanswered.
Go ahead ... do the math.
If that "axiom" is anywhere close to the Truth, then what we "know" is increasing linearly while what we "don't know" is increasing geometrically. The more we come to know, the less we really understand about the whole.
Kinda like Zeno's paradox in reverse.
The bottom line? There's no reason to get your undies bunched over the truth or lack thereof, in your humble opinion, about any of these theories. They are all different perspectives and approaches to the same set of problems. Since we need to deal with the reality of brain disorders and not the theory of why they are or how they come to be, taking a pragmatic approach and using whatever works is going to prove more effective for most people in treating their disorders and the complications they create, no matter how incompatible or incommensurate the "theories" behind your methods are.
my two cents,
bob
Posted by Ginny on May 29, 2000, at 13:45:58
In reply to Re: Truth = Diversion, posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 11:57:24
"There simply is no such thing as a scientific truth. . . . There's no reason to get your undies bunched over the truth or lack thereof, in your humble opinion, about any of these theories. They are all different perspectives and approaches to the same set of problems."
Would you believe that precept, would you act upon it, if you consulted a physician about a big, ugly tumor on your kidney? Some people do, no doubt; some people believe in faith healers, all kinds of "alternative" medicine, etc. Pat Robertson, for example, has a lot to say about both Darwin and Freud. Does Big Pat deserve a voice in this debate?
"Since we need to deal with the reality of brain disorders . . . "
A bobesque hey Hey HEY! What would the deconstructionist seminar make of that phrasing? Without scientific ground rules, who are we to say brain disorders are real? Who are we to say that emotional malady arises from brain disorders? Perhaps I was born under a bad sign. Perhaps I am possessed by spirits. Perhaps I lack old-time religion. Perhaps I am oppressed by the bourgeoisie.
I suggest your laid-back approach to pragmatism (and I question whether that word has any meaning outside of a scientific context) is a luxury available to consumers (connoisseurs?) of science and not to scientists themselves. And not to me, for that matter. The reality and the importance of my distress is not open to debate. Thomas Kuhn notwithstanding, the day-to-day practice of science is essentially problem solving. I view my emotional ailments as problems for me to solve, and I have placed my bets on medical science for a solution. It is of utmost importance to me that my physician endeavors very deliberately to get it right, scientifically. In my view, mind science is at a stage where Freud et alia can, and should be, completely dismissed.
With undies smoothly arrayed,
Ginny
Posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 21:42:30
In reply to bob, posted by Ginny on May 29, 2000, at 13:45:58
"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths" according to Karl Popper. So folklore can't be all that bad a place to begin, particularly where science is failing to do the job.
The value of any scientific endeavor lies in how well it can explain what has been observed and how well those explanations predict future events of the sort subjected to previous study. I'll come back to this later.
If "mind science" is so advanced, why can't it give me a course of treatment that will relieve my distress? Certainly, if I had a big ugly kidney tumor, my doctors would know exactly what they should do to alleviate my distress. Or, perhaps the fact that mind science has failed to alleviate my distress means that "it's all in my own mind", it's some sort of epiphenomenon, and has nothing to do with a scientific cause?
Explanatory power and predictive power have little to do with discerning the Truth. Surely, if you can drop Kuhn's name into a discussion you should know how theory *always* underdetermines nature and, therefore, how any one system of disciplined inquiry will never get the whole picture correct.
At the same time, tossing out the baby with the bathwater is hardly called for. Arguing that science does not directly access the Truth about Reality is hardly a strike against it -- I'd rather say that it's an argument that most scientists would agree with. I'd also suggest that most of us think our research is pretty damn close to striking the truth, or that we'd LIKE it to be, but any scientist who claims to have ascertained the true nature of something has stopped being a scientist at that point. There are a number of times in the history of science when scientists of a particular period have predicted an "end to science" since all of the "big questions" were about to be answered, only to have the whole scheme turned upon its head.
As for having to deal with the reality of any issue--I come from an applied science background. I need to use what works. I don't have the luxury of uncontaminated laboratory conditions or of controlled experiments with manipulations of a single variable at any one time. That doesn't mean that I throw out "scientific ground rules" ... it also doesn't mean that I apply them dogmatically. That path leads to what Stephen Jay Gould calls "physics envy"...there is no *one* set of Scientific Ground Rules.
But if there was, then it would be the ground rules of physics, in all probability. It's like Rutherford said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
Personally, I prefer folklore to stamp collecting.
But even within physics, if you go to either pole of our known universe and compare the subatomic to the cosmologic, you find two incommensurate systems whose ground rules negate the possiblity of the other.
Does that make cosmology or quantum chromodynamics any less powerful as explanatory devices within their own realms? But you've read Kuhn, so you know that we'll get a unified field theory as soon as someone finds the right way of breaking the rules we have now.
In the mean time, I'll use what works in my field, and I have nothing against throwing together explanations from incommensurate theories as long as they improve my overall ability to predict behaviors and control outcomes.
Now, with respect to my life and my maladies of the mind, I have found little, no, nothing to support a neurochemical explanation for my disorder nor have I found anything in medical science that can predict when my next major depressive episode will occur, nor any explanation of what will be happening in my brain at that time with enough precision so that an appropriate course of action may be taken, nor have I seen any evidence that medical science has a means of preventing me from having another major depressive episode (let alone push the melancholia in-between the episodes into remission) in the future.
It simply lacks the predictive power and the explanatory power to do those things. (I did say I would get back to it.)
What "mind science" has taught me so far, though, is that my disorder probably has something to do with norepinephrine and dopamine levels and how my brain cells don't manage those chemicals in a more normative manner. I've also learned that pharmaceutical agents that boost the levels of those two chemicals in my bloodstream tend to alleviate some of my symptomology.
But as for a cure -- well, unless you're suggesting some sort of parallel between what doctors do to big, ugly kidney tumors and me getting a frontal lobotomy, I just don't see much promise of a cure for what I've got coming anytime soon.
I also place no faith in elevated levels of certain neurotransmitters changing my behaviors. The gulf between what is understood by biochemicalneuroscience and its macroscopic consequences -- human behavior -- is just too broad at this time to convince me that there might even be a chance of bridging it in my lifetime.
But I'm still going to take my nortriptyline, my klonopin, and my methylphenidate.
I'll do that mostly because it keeps the "ground" underneath me solid enough for therapy to work. And, oddly enough, for me therapy means questioning my root-level assumptions of how I think my social world works and looking for evidence to support or refute it.
The psychological paradigm I hold most dear considers mind to extend "beyond the flesh" into our culture and its artifacts, whether material or psychological in nature. To limit the science of mind to that which can be contained within purely biological constructs simply misses the definition of what a "mind" is.
Bottom line? If you're going to stick to a single, narrow litmus test for what is a fact and what is an opinion, you're going to cut yourself out of every single field of disciplined inquiry other than that of your test. If you're living your life in a bubble or in a lab somewhere, you might have that luxury.
cheers,
bob
Posted by CarolAnn on May 30, 2000, at 8:15:12
In reply to So, what's your point?, posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 21:42:30
I am reading a book which outlines the history of physics(don't understand a lot of it), and it is fascinating to see how, everytime a scientist has found the ultimate "smallest" particle, a future scientist has come along and found one smaller. I hope that I am reading your posts correctly, bob, if I am, I think they can be summed up in two words: Chaos Theory. Or else, I am not as smart as I think I am, which is more likely the case!^) CarolAnn
Posted by Ginny on May 30, 2000, at 13:34:17
In reply to So, what's your point?, posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 21:42:30
Dear bob,
“So, what’s your point?”
My primary point, plainly stated, was to question and challenge the validity of Freudian (broadly construed) analysis. I view this to be an issue of practical (that is, non-academic) consequence to psychiatric patients.
Your remarks regarding linguistics, epistemology, philosophy of science, cosmology, physics, and truth with a capital “T” are irrelevant to my primary point and illogical, to boot, and not something I have any interest in discussing. You contend, essentially, that the insolubility of the ultimate mysteries of the universe somehow prevents me from forming a reasonable judgement about the validity or potential benefit of a psychiatric therapy; that because we cannot know everything, then we cannot know anything. Nonsense.
Imagine a psychology that theorizes the existence of unseen z-waves, which z-waves can affect one’s mind and cause depression; and that such effects can be measured and corrected by means of a therapeutic mechanical device called z-meter (I don’t know squat about Scientology, but I think it contains a theory along these lines). Assume such therapy is expensive and time-consuming. Assume that the z-wave therapy is one of a menu of therapy options (make up your own menu). Among the myriad factors that go into a decision whether to pursue such z-therapy, isn’t it perfectly, obviously legitimate to question: excuse me for asking, but is there really any such thing as z-waves? Does your z-meter really work, Boss? I want to avoid word-games here, so if the word “truth” is problematic, choose your own phrasing: Does the theory make sense? Does the therapy work? Are the premises correct? Can they be explained in terms understandable to a reasonably educated and thoughtful patient? I’m not asking for Truth here, I just want to avoid wasting my time and money on an ineffective therapy. Wouldn’t lack of scientific evidence of the existence of z-waves tend to send you in search of an alternative therapy?
Now imagine a psychology that theorizes the existence of an unseen thing, a quality, a space, a dynamic, a phenomenon in your mind called “the unconscious.” Excuse me for asking, but . . . .
I don’t pretend to have the human mind entirely figured out. My point is attenuated: Freudian theory is mistaken. Furthermore, I would agree with you that efficacy trumps, or precedes, understanding. Nobody has any idea how or why ECT “works,” but I can testify that it saved my bacon.
As for the bulk of your message, I assume that addressing the message to “you” is merely your style of discourse. Otherwise, you are attributing to me assertions that I never came close to making.
Happy days,
Ginny
Posted by Noa on May 30, 2000, at 15:29:31
In reply to Re: So, what's your point?, posted by Ginny on May 30, 2000, at 13:34:17
Whether Freud contributed anything useful to the science/art of psychiatry is one question. Whether to adhere wholesale to his theories, or use his analytical approach is another. We certainly wouldn't hold dogmatically to theories in other areas of knowledge without acknowleging modifications resulting from emerging knowledge.
As for unconscious....Do I believe it exists? Yes. But let me explain. The unconscious, as Freud conceived it, lock stock and barrel, no. But does that mean I must discard the concept of unconscious fantasy, thought, feeling, motivation? No. I believe the concept of unconscious can be consistent with modern neuroscience, because the concept of unconscious, as I see it, is not the entity that Freud hypothesized. It is more of process. I think it is possible for the human brain to engage in unconscious processes that influence our behavior, emotions and cognition. The unconscious processes are probably a result of encoding thoughts, feelings, memories based upon both our environmental experiences as well as our biologically determined ones.
But I think that Freud's concept of an unconscious, as a "part" of the mind, perse, doesn't work for me. Still, his thinking on this started the process of developing new ways of thinking of conscious and unconscious mind, and I think that was a good thing.
Posted by JohnHenry on May 30, 2000, at 18:22:05
In reply to Re: So, what's your point?, posted by Ginny on May 30, 2000, at 13:34:17
> Dear bob,
>
> “So, what’s your point?”
>
> My primary point, plainly stated, was to question and challenge the validity of Freudian (broadly construed) analysis. I view this to be an issue of practical (that is, non-academic) consequence to psychiatric patients.
>
> Your remarks regarding linguistics, epistemology, philosophy of science, cosmology, physics, and truth with a capital “T” are irrelevant to my primary point and illogical, to boot, and not something I have any interest in discussing.This JohnHenry would not be interested in forcing anyone to discuss bob's remarks regarding linguistics, etc., even though one writer deemed them illogical without qualifying what rules of logic they fail to meet, or establishing their qualifications as an arbitrer of logic. I am prepared to accept most people's internal logic, for the sake of better understanding the human experience, regardless how inconsistent it may be with that of the scientific community.
Regarding the unconscious, anyone who presumes that humans are not motivated by biological attenuations of which they are not conscious, well, they are offering further proof of an unconscious by demonstrating their lack of consciousness of even well-documented traits of the homo sapiens nervous system. Sorry, puns are not good logic, eh?
Freud, like generations of shamans, seers and whatnot before him, recognized the complexity of our character, but he began to articulate in western scientific terms the existence of an unconscious. His research was a first step into a century of further study that eventually left his drug-influenced speculation in the dust. But the theraputic worth of exploring the makeup of our individual and collective unconscious will likely continue to be recognized long after we, the now living, all join Freud in the dust-bin of history.
ECT might have saved one person's bacon (I keep mine in a refrigerator) but a few individual's experience does not eclipse the overall pattern of ECT administration, with more than half of all ECT treatments given to people over the age of 65, and in most cases to people whose health care is provided by public assistance. Perhaps those individuals with nice, fresh bacon can assure these elders that ECT mitigation of feelings is a fine replacement for the discovery of a referant for their feelings. But pro-ECT testimony, as part of an informed consent process, implies an oppurtunity for anti-ECT testimony.
bob's post seemed to be a step away from the "depression is a biological brain disease" rhetoric. Efficacy is a fine defense for medication, but when efficacy of medications becomes proof to fill in the blanks of an incomplete science, and the science is then used to bully individuals for whom the medications are not efficacious, the logic becomes dangerously circular.
We can accurately say the sky *is* blue because blue is universally accepted to refer to a particular segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. Kidney stones are far more tangible than the collection of neuroscience currently informing the development of psychotropic medications. The definitions of mental disease are extremely controversial, and the academic, clinical and scientific recognition of various "brain diseases" is even less universal.
My interest is also strictly non-academic. I want to be able to have meaningful feelings. When the academies tell me my feelings, whether bright-white, dull-grey, red, green or blue are meaningless, and are simply a biological expression of a brain disease, well, my agitation seems to swell until I feel like tearing down whatever defective walls of civility protect the academic community. Such a presumption of what *is* *my* disease infringes on my humanity.
This is an issue of practical importance to me because I wish to remain a member of the civilized community, and do not wish the non-conformity of my feelings to become a basis for my being forced or otherwise coerced into a psychiatric setting.
It's just a bannana, Anna, and Oedipus is just folklore, but my feelings are mine, and they mean something. In my case, medications just might force that meaning deeper behind the shroud of my unconscious. In some people, such buried feelings might erupt as sociopathic behaviour.
Posted by bob on May 30, 2000, at 22:46:48
In reply to Re: So, what's your point?, posted by Ginny on May 30, 2000, at 13:34:17
> I don’t pretend to have the human mind entirely figured out. My point is attenuated: Freudian theory is mistaken. Furthermore, I would agree with you that efficacy trumps, or precedes, understanding. Nobody has any idea how or why ECT “works,” but I can testify that it saved my bacon.
Then all I suggest is that you not put all your eggs in one basket. There is an expansive literature base out there on studies that demonstrate what therapy can or cannot do, whether Freudian to any degree or not, and carried out following an appropriate set of scientific ground rules.
Tossing the lot because of what Freud wrote about 100 years ago is hardly a scientific approach to examining the issue of what talk therapy can achieve. I mean, skepticism *is* a virtue, but your objectivity is slipping.
On the other hand, one good read around this board might give one pause in just how much efficacy should be ascribed to "cures" coming out of the medical model of investigating and treating brain disorders.
cheers,
bob
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 18:01:10
In reply to Efficacy as a trump card, posted by bob on May 30, 2000, at 22:46:48
I do dearly love these exchanges, as heated as they can get. I think discussing the value and limitations of sciencce vis a vis other disciplines or belief systems is of utmost importance. So much "faith" is placed in science these days, and so much influence is still exerted by religion and philosphy, to cede the debate to those in the lofty heights of the Ivory Tower or to disparage it with dismissive slights like "esoterica" is to do humanity a reckless disservice.
I think scientists and those who critique science would do well to dispense with the whole idea of "Truth" from the outset. Doesn't Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle, and what is known of the limitations of conscious thought and memory give us enough cautionary information to realise that Truth, beyond being unattainable, may not exist?
All that can matter in science is the scientific method, which is a well-tested algorithm for approaching problems, testing them, and communicating our observations, and the theories that result from the application of the method, which stand so long as they retain sufficient predictive power to be of use. Many theoretical constructs are still utilized by scientists or technicians (Newtonian mechanics, for example) because for many applications they work very well, dispite the fact they are fundamentally inaccurate. Often minute differences between the needed prediction and the actual phenomenon are too insignificant to worry about. Newton can get you into Earth orbit just fine. Einstein would just slow you down.
Of course we aren't unfeeling machines, and we are so hungry and inquisitive that to acknowledge such limitations is rather unsatisfying. I think scientists do enough to propagate myths on their own by claiming we may someday "know the mind of God", or by making "beauty" a criterion for theoretical success.
Whether or not we find ourselves affirmed, actualized, or aesthetically pleased by science, I think we need to come to grips with the absolute need for science to be impersonal and unfeeling. Of course this is an impossible goal for a personal and feeling species to attain, but we can do our best to approach it. Perhaps the best possible balance will be to bring the emotional satisfaction of scientific discovery and the personal significance of our particular specialization to our work ethic, but to leave these at the door as best we can when evaluating the data. Since we cannot be perfectly impartial, we rely on peer review and duplication to bolster our theories. When our theories are disproven we feel a loss, maybe even a bit insulted. That's life.
As for what science can tell us about perception, vs. figures like Freud and Jung ("figures" meaning the men and the mystique that surrounds them), it seems to me there's nothing wrong with saying progess has been made since the turn of the century in our understanding of the mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that since the discoveries of science can never converge on the "Truth", theories and folklore cannot be rated by degrees of accuracy. Freud and Jung were often astonishingly insightful, but did not put much of their insight to the standard of scientific investigation. We can credit them for ideas, and then credit those who have effectively expanded on or refuted those ideas.
And as for the study of the "unconscious", it seems to me that any distinction between physiology and psychology can only exist as an academic convenience, in that it is often too much work with all there is to know for psychologists to be neuroanatomists or cellular biologists. All should acknowledge the contribution to the whole picture each contributes, and not be trapped in ideological camps that often arise with such specialisation.
The information is telling us that there are in all probability subliminal processes at work, that our apprehension encompasses more than our conscious perception, and that many stimuli we are both unaware and aware of contribute to our behavior and how we reflect on ourselves and our surroundings. Whether this is what Freud meant by the "unconscious" I don't know. Disctinctions between unconscious and subliminal are bound to be so semantically convoluted I'm guessing there is little value in wasting time on clarifying them. What Freud meant and what we have come to understand as a result are likewise of more interest to historians of science than those who practice it. Newton thought force at a distance was mediated by the Holy Spirit. Does this negate the value of his equations?
Posted by bob on May 31, 2000, at 23:22:03
In reply to Re: Ahh, science, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 18:01:10
(sorry, but I just HAD to click that new button ;^)
> Newton thought force at a distance was mediated by the Holy Spirit.
Who's to say it doesn't? ;^)
Again, the frontiers of physics are always an interesting place to look. It seems like every physicist who gains any sort of notoriety, whether in the general press or even just among fellow physicists, has to take a crack at Einstein's "God does not play dice" ... and it usually comes in the boorish form of "Not only does God play dice, he [blah blah blah whatever]." Personally, I think Niels Bohr got the best shot in when he replied, "Stop telling God what to do."
> I think scientists and those who critique science would do well to dispense with the whole idea of "Truth" from the outset. Doesn't Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle, and what is known of the limitations of conscious thought and memory give us enough cautionary information to realise that Truth, beyond being unattainable, may not exist?
But that's the problem with trying to nail down the capital-T Truth. First, by looking to relativity, the uncertainty principle, and such, you're looking at flawed, incomplete visions. By definition, Truth will not be found, in its totality, in them.
As for the limits of the mind, there is a branch of psychology known as radical constructivism. Some of its root assumptions: that our knowledge of reality is a construct of the mind; that as such, skepticism is the first requirement for improving one's knowledge of reality; perhaps most fundamental--and I harrangued about this a bit up above--that how we come to know is completely disjoint from what truly is (the "epistemology is not ontology" spew).
So, to say that Truth is unattainable is fairly consistent with a radical constructivist perspective--we might obtain it, in parts or in whole, but we'd have no way of telling. To say, then, that it may not exist since we cannot come to know it is to again confuse knowing with being.
That is perhaps the greatest beauty (now, how's that for an objective term?) of modern science as a way of knowing the world. Science requires that any mental model hold up to empirical testing in order for that model to have value. The testing matters more than the model, and so the model-makers may take flights of fancy in their work ... as long as the flight gets tested.
What's the objective purpose in naming model constructs things like "Truth", "Beauty", and "Charm"? How patently ridiculous is it to talk about time as a dimension in the same manner of our three physical dimensions, let alone another 6 or so that seem to have broken apart and curled up "inside" of particles, rather than the particles existing inside the dimensions?
Occam's Razor is another good one. "When two theories describe the same phenomenon equally well, the simpler explanation is correct." Says who? (Yeah, I know, William of Occam.) Where's the objectivity in that? Occam's Razor is more of a principle of the prejudices in human meaning-making than, perhaps, it may be of Reality. It's indelibly stamped upon computer/human interface design ... if something can be done with two clicks one way and with one click another, you go with the single click. (yes, it's a principle, not a reality ;^) CarolAnn brought up chaos theory -- here we have an example of complexity, not simplicity, and yet it produces elegance in the end, and we find such elegance to correlate highly with what is true.
Mind you, we're still talking about Science here.
Perhaps the most celebrated example of the application of Occam's Razor is in the overthrow of the Ptolemaic solar system by the Copernican solar system. In case you don't know the story, because Ptolemy's system put the earth at the center of it all, it required the addition of "epicycles"--circles within circles--to account for irregularities in the orbits of celestial bodies. For example, Mars doesn't just march in an orderly fashion across the sky with the constellations throughout the year -- there are times when it moves in the opposite direction of everything else (retrograde motion). In fact, as observations got better and better through more and more data taken with better and better instruments, the epicycles started needing epicycles.
The story goes that along came Copernicus, who placed the sun at the center of the solar system and, in this one act, introduced a simpler system (i.e., one without epicycles) and therefore on closer to the truth.
The truth of the matter is that the Copernican system placed the sun at the center of the universe (a believe many scientists held until the late 1800s, since nobody had introduced the idea of galaxies yet), and that it required even MORE epicycles than the Ptomelaic system.
Most of the confusion in both systems came about because their proponents insisted that celestial bodies must travel in circular orbits, since the cirlce is the mathematically simplest and purest closed path of the conic sections. After 40 years of brute calculations, Kepler finally put that all to rest by figuring out the planets travelled in elliptical orbits. No epicycles. But simplicity all the same.
The geometry of Einstein's general relativity makes those paths even simpler -- into straight lines -- but then you've got to be able to grasp the concept of curved space to be able to see those straight lines (not me, my brain hurts when I try).
Anyway, the point is that scientists still dream of simplicity (or, for some, complexity) and elegance as being equal to Truth, but there's always (at least, tho sometimes only) one skeptic around to remind them about the need for their dreams to match with empirical evidence.
Point within a point: science, being a human endeavor, is value-laden. Brute data is objective. Interpretation, again, is value-laden. Humans have many systems of knowing besides science. That they don't all rely on brute data to keep us "grounded in reality" is to our great benefit ... particularly since the day we received the brute data on the efficacy of atomic weapons fifty-five years ago.
Enough ramblin' for one night ;^)
bob
Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 10:35:44
In reply to Re: Ahh, science » Adam, posted by bob on May 31, 2000, at 23:22:03
> (sorry, but I just HAD to click that new button ;^)
>
> > Newton thought force at a distance was mediated by the Holy Spirit.
>
> Who's to say it doesn't? ;^)
>
Well, I guess in at least some circumstances this would require equating the Holy Spirit with photons, and gluons, which have actually been observed, and maybe things like gravitons and the Higgs particle, for which there is strong theoretical and some experimental/observational evidence.> Again, the frontiers of physics are always an interesting place to look. It seems like every physicist who gains any sort of notoriety, whether in the general press or even just among fellow physicists, has to take a crack at Einstein's "God does not play dice" ... and it usually comes in the boorish form of "Not only does God play dice, he [blah blah blah whatever]." Personally, I think Niels Bohr got the best shot in when he replied, "Stop telling God what to do."
>
I agree. I don't know why God keeps entering the scientific discussion, except to be inclusive or PC. I think Steven Weinberg might have been right when he said such musings on the Creator and purpose are attributable to "nostalgia". I imagine naming a book "The God Particle" (Leon Lederman, former Fermilab chief) is a great way to sell product. It also might stimulate debate, I suppose, on the nature of God in a universe increasingly demystified by science. I think doing so just leads to confusion and misinterpretation. I don't think it's correct to equate "God" with "energy" or forces or particles.I've sometimes wondered, if Anselm were alive today, would he have phrased his "Ontological Argument" as "God is that which is greater than ought else we can concieve, which is not subject to the limitations of relative time and the uncertainty principle." Unless one is trying to scrutinize a supposed miracle, there seems to be little place for God-hunting in science, since all one finds are manifestations of His creation, and not the creator Himself. At best we should expect to get a glimpse of the blueprint, which is just a finite expression of (by definition) an infinite mind. Otherwise, God is just the cosmos or something in it, which falls somewhat short of the mark we have set.
As for the rest, the progression from Ptolomy to Gallileo is well described, as well as Newtonian mechanics to Strings. Again, I won't say the search for Truth isn't what motivates many scientists, but I think it's an unnecessary, and perhaps undesireable goal to set for oneself. The more I learn about "Truth", the less I have any idea what it is supposed to be. I think all science needs to be is interesting, accurate, and useful, maybe not even useful. Pursuit of that which is interesting for the sole purpose of satisfying curiosity, while striving for accuracy has given us so many useful things anyway, why burden the whole process with "Truth"?
Whatever uses the information we gather with science is put to, that's a question for ethicists, I suppose. Scientists who have something to say on ethical matters certainly should chime in, but then we should understand they are dealing with morals, not with science, which should remain neutral on the subject. Ethics is a moving target that constrains the means of discovery, and the uses of those discoveries, as it should. Ethics should not interfere with our interpretation of data, or its communication. Matter can be converted to energy. That statement is enough without worrying about clean power or nuclear bombs. It's wrong to make the pursuit of science liable for either, but its great to hope for the benefits of the next discovery, and that we will learn to use knowlege responsibly.
Posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 22:10:12
In reply to Re: Ahh, science, posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 10:35:44
> I agree. I don't know why God keeps entering the scientific discussion, except to be inclusive or PC. I think Steven Weinberg might have been right when he said such musings on the Creator and purpose are attributable to "nostalgia".
And in saying such, Weinberg shows his own prejudices, perhaps, more than his understanding of the beliefs of others. I think Einstein, among others, made it quite clear that by gaining greater understanding of physical "laws", his own sense of mystery of the Ultimate Questions and Their Answers also grew and this lead to a stronger faith in a Creator than he had previous to his scientific enlightenment. Some argue that the very existence of order is enough evidence of a plan and, therefore, a planner ... and that the finding of such order, particularly where there was none before, brings spiritual comfort as much as it brings intellectual satisfaction.
It gets back to the old "the more you know, the more you realize how little you know" argument. If you can acknowledge the limitations of the mind in grasping creation, then having a spiritual faith that is orthogonal to sensory data is not an unreasonable proposition. That no one has either proven or disproven the existence of a Creator supports the orthogonality of faith to proof.
> Whatever uses the information we gather with science is put to, that's a question for ethicists, I suppose. Scientists who have something to say on ethical matters certainly should chime in, but then we should understand they are dealing with morals, not with science, which should remain neutral on the subject.I can't disagree more. Ask a scientist "What is science?", and you'll probably receive an answer on average somewhere along the lines of "an endeavor to gain further understanding about our world." Ask why we need this understanding, and I'd bet you'd start hearing responses about the need or desire "to predict and/or control natural phenomenon" with a sentiment about improving the human condition.
That desire (there goes objectivity) to predict and/or to control is inherently a political motive, in the sense that "politics" is the "science" of power and its use. Scientific decisions, because they are made by human beings, are inherently value-laden. (Sorry, Adam, but you mentioned this first --) the social implications of the Uncertainty Principle is that the mere act of *observation* influences the nature of what is observed.
But fessing up to the moral and ethical dimensions of doing science should not be meant as a means to stifle scientists. Rather, I think it is a responsibility scientists have to take the lead on such issues, rather than abandoning such debates and conversations to people who do not understand the voice of science in these debates. The more scientists clam up when someone raises the "specter" of the morality of scientific progress, the less progress there will be.
One "for instance" -- I am 100% in favor of the genetic engineering of humans. Not only do I feel there are strong scientific reasons to do so, I also believe this coincides 100% with my spiritual beliefs. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that humanity is NOT ready to face the implications of such power. We're not even mature enough as a species to discuss genetically-engineered tomatoes. But the maturation will never happen until the debate is joined by all voices and with an open mind on all sides. It's hard enough for an individual to have an open mind -- it seems near impossible for a "group mind" to be open at this stage in our development.
So, it may take a Donald Trump cloning himself and then spending all his money of research grants for those who believe that the neurochemical essence of memory can be discerned, "downloaded", and then "uploaded" into another brain before people start seriously confronting this issue.
But don't let the objectivity of sensory data fool you -- as soon as it passes into interpretation, it becomes an act with moral dimensions.
cheers,
bob
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 12:10:49
In reply to Re: Ahh, science, posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 22:10:12
> And in saying such, Weinberg shows his own prejudices, perhaps, more than his understanding of the beliefs of others.
> If you can acknowledge the limitations of the mind in grasping creation, then having a spiritual faith that is orthogonal to sensory data is not an unreasonable proposition. That no one has either proven or disproven the existence of a Creator supports the orthogonality of faith to proof.
>
I think Weinberg may have meant many things by "nostalgia". Certainly his own bias toward atheism may color the issue, but I'm guessing what he hoped to convey is the separation of science from faith. One can as easily interpret the discoveries of science as faith-affirming or the contrary. It is nostalgic to think that interpretations one way or the other should be intrisic to the scientific discourse, as they were when science and philosophy were one and the same. Mere reasoning is no longer sufficient to make a scientific claim. You have to have some evidence. It's true: Discussion about "God" is orthogonal (or superfluous, depending on your viewpoint). Since the very nature of our concept of God makes His existance impossible to approach empirically, science is essentially silent on the matter, and scientists, operating as scientists, might do well to be the same. What science is not silent on is the accuracy of folklore. Though science can't disprove God, it has cast much of the traditions of our old philosphies and religions in doubt, as well as revealed intriguing parallels between spiritual thought and the discoveries of science. Whether or not the latter is a result of the limits of perception, or the power of our intuition, I don't know.
>
>
> I can't disagree more. Ask a scientist "What is science?", and you'll probably receive an answer on average somewhere along the lines of "an endeavor to gain further understanding about our world." Ask why we need this understanding, and I'd bet you'd start hearing responses about the need or desire "to predict and/or control natural phenomenon" with a sentiment about improving the human condition.
>
> But don't let the objectivity of sensory data fool you -- as soon as it passes into interpretation, it becomes an act with moral dimensions.
>
> cheers,
> bobI may not have been clear here. I agree that the motivations for scientific study are not in themselves scientific, and are laden with value judgements, etc. However, the process of discovery can and should be as objective as we can hope to make it, and the information gathered is in itself neither good nor evil. It's just information.
It is a deeply troubling issue, though, that we cannot be certain if an objective reality exists, or that human limitations allow us to perceive it. I think the best one can do is keep striving to be as objective as one can be when interpreting data, and to also invite and embrace the scrutiny of other individuals, not only of our data, but also our interpretations, and perhaps ourselves, to keep us grounded. We have no better means at our disposal. We must acknowledge doubt about the very nature of our perceptions, but we can't be paralyzed by that doubt any more than we should be hubris about our own abilities.
Genetic engineering is a great way to illustrate the complex way science and morals interact. I would say that all science provides is the information and the means to do the engineering. Whether or not we should is a whole other matter, and we might turn to religion as reliably as science for the answer to that question. If science provides us with any insight at all, it may be to force us to acknowledge that, at this juncture, we lack the intelligence, knowledge, and technology to rationally improve on the results of a stochastic process of selection that has been going on for about 4 billion years. Evidence for this is easy to find: We can't make a protein to do what we want to from scratch without relying on stochastic processes like phage display. We utterly lack the ability to rationally design proteins, period. The best we can do now is stick different natural motifs together in a modular fashion, tweak them a little, and hope our chimeras don't to more harm than good. Given that obvious limitation, we would be remiss if we thought we could rationally design people. The best we can do now is, unscientifically, determine that being happier, taller, stronger, smarter, etc. is "better", try to figure out what makes happy, tall, strong, smart people the way they are, and then try to replace "faulty" genes with the preferred version we discovered (unscientific motivation, value-laden criteria, leading to morally neutral scientific discoveries, the fruits of which are then applied unambiguously).
I think faith and ethics will guide us in our assessment of what a "better" person really is. I think that is quite appropriate, since, thinking scientifically from a chaotic or an evolutionary perspective, there may be no real reason to favor one form of a gene over another, since we cannot predict the future or the value of an outcome beyond our own needs.
Posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 16:17:29
In reply to Re: Ahh, science » bob, posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 12:10:49
> I may not have been clear here. I agree that the motivations for scientific study are not in themselves scientific, and are laden with value judgements, etc. However, the process of discovery can and should be as objective as we can hope to make it, and the information gathered is in itself neither good nor evil. It's just information.
Agreed. It's just the "Edward Tellers" of the scientific establishment who worry me on this point.
> I think faith and ethics will guide us in our assessment of what a "better" person really is. I think that is quite appropriate, since, thinking scientifically from a chaotic or an evolutionary perspective, there may be no real reason to favor one form of a gene over another, since we cannot predict the future or the value of an outcome beyond our own needs.Well, that is the rub, isn't it? I'd give neither faith nor ethics any more predictive power than science, particularly when our most common ivocations of either are based upon past practices.
cheers,
bob
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 17:31:57
In reply to Re: Ahh, science, posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 16:17:29
> > I think faith and ethics will guide us in our assessment of what a "better" person really is. I think that is quite appropriate, since, thinking scientifically from a chaotic or an evolutionary perspective, there may be no real reason to favor one form of a gene over another, since we cannot predict the future or the value of an outcome beyond our own needs.
>
> Well, that is the rub, isn't it? I'd give neither faith nor ethics any more predictive power than science, particularly when our most common ivocations of either are based upon past practices.
>
> cheers,
> bobIt's a hefty rub. To be honest, sometimes I feel that, if we really listened to what the data
is telling us, we'd be better off leaving the genetic manipulation of the species alone. But our
moral imperative to end suffering compels us to do otherwise. Science give us no information
about whether or not people _shoud_ suffer. It can only, at best, describe suffering and maybe
distinguish it from euphoria.One thing science certainly doesn't provide help against is econimic inequities. If we are foolish
enough to attempt germ cell manipulation of the genome any time soon, I can readily imagine only
the wealthy will benefit from such manipulations, since building your own perfect baby is bound to
be expensive. Say looks, personality, and IQ (probably in that order) really do help you get ahead.
Say not only do you have Bohr's brain but Brad Pitt's body, and you're born into wealth and
privilege to boot. You're predestined for success. I can just imagine the socioeconomic gap that
such planned-parenthood will create. It's scary.But that's what Freud and Jung were all about, were'nt they, improving the human animal? Do we really
know what improvements should be made? No, we just want to help people live better lives. Is that
right or wrong? Only faith in some future utopia can justify our convictions, I believe.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.