- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 2
>A newly qualified doctor was looking after a young child, seriously ill with tuberculosus meningitis. The doctor had heard that the grandfather was blaming his daughter, the child's mother, for causing the illness. When he learnt that grandfather was visiting the ward, he sought to clear up the misunderstanding. The grandfather listened quietly to the detailed explanation of the role of the tubercule bacillus, host immunity, inflammatory processes and pathophysiological consequences. The doctor was careful to convey this in non-technical language. Finally, he stated 'So, you see, the illness has nothing to do with your daughter at all".
[The grandfather replied:]
>My daughter has caused my family much worry and shame. She got in with a bad crowd at school and then went off with a bad man. We tried to stop her, but she ran away and got involved in drugs. She had this boy to that man, but he was a drug addict and left her. She lived in damp housing and did many bad things. She didn't look after my grandson properly, often left him alone and didn't feed him properly. That is why he got sick'.
http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85320-X.html
pp.47-48
Neither of the above explanations seem to be competing. We could look at it as (comparatively) proximate and distal causes.
Both of the explanations (alone) would leave something out, however.
The proximate medical explanation would leave out the information about housing conditions and emotional support being worthwhile points of intervention. If the boy had been kept in better conditions then his immunity might have been enough to resist the infection, or he might well not have been exposed to it in the first place.
The ultimate social explanation would leave out the information about the pathogen and about antibiotics being a worthwhile point of intervention.
Social and proximal bodily (e.g., neurological) explanations don't necessarily compete. Leaving out one aspect of the explanation can (in some instances) leave out important information as to possible causes, and possible points of intervention.
Some people think that somehow the medical (or neurological) level of explanation is somehow more 'fundamental'. What does that mean? Sometimes people say 'well, that is what is causing the symptoms'. But social mechanisms can cause symptoms too (as when exposure to western ideals of beauty result in a much higher rate of eating disorders). Of course the western ideals are realized in neural hardware, and of course the conditions the boy was kept in affected his exposure and resistence to the pathogen, but not looking at the social causal mechanisms leaves out important information.
If neurology is more fundamental than psychology
and investigating / intervening on the more fundamental is 'better'
then why stop there?
Why not similarly conclude that particle physics is more fundamental than neurology and reccomend that psychiatry investigate sub-atomic particles and insist that it intervene on those directly?
Do people think that the 'final psychiatry' will involve direct interventions on sub-atomic particles in the brain?
Then why think that the 'final psychiatry' will involve direct interventions on neurology...
Rather than social interventions
and / or talk therapy?
[The grandfather replied:]
>My daughter has caused my family much worry and shame. She got in with a bad crowd at school and then went off with a bad man. We tried to stop her, but she ran away and got involved in drugs. She had this boy to that man, but he was a drug addict and left her. She lived in damp housing and did many bad things. She didn't look after my grandson properly, often left him alone and didn't feed him properly. That is why he got sick'.
http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85320-X.html
pp.47-48
Neither of the above explanations seem to be competing. We could look at it as (comparatively) proximate and distal causes.
Both of the explanations (alone) would leave something out, however.
The proximate medical explanation would leave out the information about housing conditions and emotional support being worthwhile points of intervention. If the boy had been kept in better conditions then his immunity might have been enough to resist the infection, or he might well not have been exposed to it in the first place.
The ultimate social explanation would leave out the information about the pathogen and about antibiotics being a worthwhile point of intervention.
Social and proximal bodily (e.g., neurological) explanations don't necessarily compete. Leaving out one aspect of the explanation can (in some instances) leave out important information as to possible causes, and possible points of intervention.
Some people think that somehow the medical (or neurological) level of explanation is somehow more 'fundamental'. What does that mean? Sometimes people say 'well, that is what is causing the symptoms'. But social mechanisms can cause symptoms too (as when exposure to western ideals of beauty result in a much higher rate of eating disorders). Of course the western ideals are realized in neural hardware, and of course the conditions the boy was kept in affected his exposure and resistence to the pathogen, but not looking at the social causal mechanisms leaves out important information.
If neurology is more fundamental than psychology
and investigating / intervening on the more fundamental is 'better'
then why stop there?
Why not similarly conclude that particle physics is more fundamental than neurology and reccomend that psychiatry investigate sub-atomic particles and insist that it intervene on those directly?
Do people think that the 'final psychiatry' will involve direct interventions on sub-atomic particles in the brain?
Then why think that the 'final psychiatry' will involve direct interventions on neurology...
Rather than social interventions
and / or talk therapy?
