Posted by
Andrews on Friday, October 30, 2009 6:17:23 PM
I wrote earlier about evidence and theology. While writing this, I came upon
a post about Darren Brown and hypnotism. What was interesting was the number of studies that claimed to use PET scans to show hypnotism really works. This reminded me of all the uses I have seen of PET scans. To show homosexuality is biological, addiction is real, that depression can only be treated pharmacologically, the tendency to crime or sexual violence is innate, and so on. It seems no matter the claim, PET scans (or now fMRIs) will "prove it".
All I can say is that PET sans only prove one thing, that mental processes are electro-chemical processes, and that various actions, thoughts and beliefs cause the brains electro-chemical conditions to change. That says nothing about whether something is biological in origin. Nor does it prove a condition needs to be treated chemically. All it shows is that the brain is a complex electro-chemical machine.
Let me offer one example. At one time there were some claiming PET scans showed that clinical depression changed the brain's chemistry, and thus, through a leap of logic,
HAD to be treated pharmaceutically. The problem is, the PET scan shows
EVERY thought is an electro-chemical process. So, if thoughts can change the electro-chemical condition of the brain, why
MUST we use pharmaceuticals? It simply does not follow.
And that is what always strikes me with these facile "proofs". They sounds semi-plausible, they offer some weak evidence for the scientifically illiterate, but f you think about things for even a few moments, it becomes obvious that they really show us very, very little. We are still largely dependent on individual reports to determine much of significance about one's mental state, and, despite all our knowledge of the regions of the brain, we still know very little about the mind which resides within the brain.
Let me correct that. We are quite adept at knowing which parts of the brain can be destroyed to eliminate functions, but we are not able to do much to make things better. In the end, the mind is still largely a mystery, even if the brain is a bit better understood.
POSTSCRIPT
I have written on this several times in the past:
Biology as Justification
Cultural Rules
Mental Illness
Don't Liberals Notice the Contradictions?
Myths of Homosexuality
Follow Up
Correlation and Causation Revisted
Just Asking For It
A Question About Biological Theories of Sexual Identity
Update
Insufficient Skepticism
Law and Order SVU Degenerates Into a Simple-Minded After School Special
As you can see, I find biological reductionism quite absurd. Then again, even on the "humanist" side I am a heretic, as I doubt that anything exists which can be meaningfully called "mental illness".