Depression likely not caused by chemical imbalance in brain

Dr. Acula

Hail Hydra
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
26,243
Reputation
8,902
Daps
139,823
This is three pages in so I haven't seen if someone addressed this yet.

When you come across articles about scientific research, I recommend people go and seek out the research yourself instead of letting news stories relay the information. Because they oversimplify it for clicks and it's often incorrect or not fully explained.

My understanding of this was they found that depression isn't only based on seratonin which scientists already knew despite depression medications being SSRI with the second S standing for seratonin. The reason they suspected it had nothing to do with seratonin, based on my understanding, is because antidepressants tended to show effectiveness after a few weeks of usage instead of immediately. So it shows that there are some downstream processes being impacted by the drugs that have an effect on mood instead of just SERATONIN. The drugs work, they just aren't sure how which is surprisingly common among a lot of drugs. They found out they work by accident. Viagra is a famous example of this (they were trying to find a way to help people with heart problems and instead found out it also gives you a boner).


TL;DR serotonin isn't the driver of depression, it's something else but antidepressants haven't been proven to be a fraud by this as there is other evidence outside of this showing their effectiveness. I saw many news stories taking this info and then extrapolating this means they found antidepressants don't work. That isn't what happened which is why always seek out the actual studies or find a forum/article from a more science minded journal that can parse the information better than your average non scientific journalist.
 

Caca-faat

Superstar
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
4,560
Reputation
2,134
Daps
16,867
Reppin
Kgn 876
The issue here is not what the scientific method is. Nobody here is arguing about what science is. Positivists clearly know how science works. Auguste Comte knew how science work. Ernest Renan knew how science work. The issue here is about the scope of the scientific method: what can science do as a tool and where it should be applied as a method of understanding phenomenon.

Philosophy of science, as a field, is more complex than "science is that/the debate is over". There are many open questions beyond knowing that science is method based on experimentation.
So the problem is we try to find out how we can apply what we understand to things we don’t understand?
 

African Peasant

Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
20,813
Reputation
3,435
Daps
75,739
So the problem is we try to find out how we can apply what we understand to things we don’t understand?
It's not a problem. It's a debate.

This is an example of authors engaging in that debate.



9789004325401.jpg


dot.png
 

Caca-faat

Superstar
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
4,560
Reputation
2,134
Daps
16,867
Reppin
Kgn 876
It's not a problem. It's a debate.

This is an example of authors engaging in that debate.



9789004325401.jpg


dot.png

I’m not sure how the application of knowledge we already have towards things we don’t understand is a debate.

If I know that I can go down the street to get to the supermarket, but also know I need to go across town; why wouldn’t I use the method I already know to get the outcome I want if I don’t know of any other methodology? It would make sense for me to drive past the supermarket to go across town instead of me going a way I don’t know which could lead to unwanted consequences.
 

African Peasant

Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
20,813
Reputation
3,435
Daps
75,739
I’m not sure how the application of knowledge we already have towards things we don’t understand is a debate.

If I know that I can go down the street to get to the supermarket, but also know I need to go across town; why wouldn’t I use the method I already know to get the outcome I want if I don’t know of any other methodology? It would make sense for me to drive past the supermarket to go across town instead of me going a way I don’t know which could lead to unwanted consequences.

Your analogy doesn't match the issue around the limitation of the scientific method. If it was that simple, there would be no debate.

You can read this to have an idea of the issues raised and the different positions held: Rethinking the Limits of Science: From the Difficulties Regarding the Frontiers to the Concern about the Confines





You can have your positon, which is to say there is no limit to the use of the scientific method. There are a lot of people saying that.


I don't have the qualifications to have a say in that debate. However, that debate exist.
 
Top