Re:Scientists are suggesting that depression is a result of ...
by coldtea on Monday January 05, 2015 @11:31AM
(#8839584)
>But it's also true that it's a bar that your opinion doesn't even come close to clearing.
Yeah, that's were traditionally people engage in discussion and evaluating each other's arguments (and even each other's opinions). Instead of expecting to settle things with some link to some research here or there, that they know even less about it that the ones that conducted it, and they have at best took a quick read of the final paper, without attempting to verify the results or anything.
Really, scientific papers, as far as their consumers in popular science are concerned, are not more than the holy scriptures of yore. Something you believe because it comes from a source of Truth.
Personally, if I'm allowed to say so, I don't believe in anything not mature enough to make it to a university syllabus. That would be 20 years and several papers by different authors at least to get to that.
>As soon as you formalized your epistemology, though, it would start to lock you into its logic. What sounds right would take more and more work to justify if it was not, in fact, true. That's one of the benefits of having an epistemology.
That's only true if epistemologies are not, like religion, flexible. But epistemologies are not some external entities, they are practiced and believed by fallible (like everyone) people.
>Meanwhile, you are responding to a person who has related his first-hand experiences and observations about a personally tragic case of clinical depression with a glib, slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory about the causes of his wife's illness.
Well, I'll have to disagree about the "slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory" part. Modern life is out of touch with the human animal and messed up, what's incoherent about it? It's an insight we celebrate in our most famous poets, writers, artists and philosophers. It's also something that can be gauged by the increase of depression incidents in particular countries and particular decades.
And who told you I, and people close to me, haven't experience depression? It's not like that persons first hand experiences are the be all end all, and it's not like first hand experience mean that much in any case.
There are all kinds of people with a wrong opinion (could be me, for example, as I'm saying this) that had "first had experiences" that got them to that opinion.
Yeah, that's were traditionally people engage in discussion and evaluating each other's arguments (and even each other's opinions). Instead of expecting to settle things with some link to some research here or there, that they know even less about it that the ones that conducted it, and they have at best took a quick read of the final paper, without attempting to verify the results or anything.
Really, scientific papers, as far as their consumers in popular science are concerned, are not more than the holy scriptures of yore. Something you believe because it comes from a source of Truth.
Personally, if I'm allowed to say so, I don't believe in anything not mature enough to make it to a university syllabus. That would be 20 years and several papers by different authors at least to get to that.
>As soon as you formalized your epistemology, though, it would start to lock you into its logic. What sounds right would take more and more work to justify if it was not, in fact, true. That's one of the benefits of having an epistemology.
That's only true if epistemologies are not, like religion, flexible. But epistemologies are not some external entities, they are practiced and believed by fallible (like everyone) people.
>Meanwhile, you are responding to a person who has related his first-hand experiences and observations about a personally tragic case of clinical depression with a glib, slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory about the causes of his wife's illness.
Well, I'll have to disagree about the "slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory" part. Modern life is out of touch with the human animal and messed up, what's incoherent about it? It's an insight we celebrate in our most famous poets, writers, artists and philosophers. It's also something that can be gauged by the increase of depression incidents in particular countries and particular decades.
And who told you I, and people close to me, haven't experience depression? It's not like that persons first hand experiences are the be all end all, and it's not like first hand experience mean that much in any case.
There are all kinds of people with a wrong opinion (could be me, for example, as I'm saying this) that had "first had experiences" that got them to that opinion.