Even, if that means letting go of our opinions.

Posted on 24/09/2011 | 0 Comments

It has been fascinating reading to follow the discussion after Andre Picard of the Globe and Mail wrote a piece about the as yet unreleased Mental Health Commission of Canada strategic framework, particularly as that discussion has addressed the issue of the role of science in mental health.

javascript:void(0)For me, the conversation has been both uplifting and disappointing. Uplifting, because of the many good insights and ideas that have been discussed and the hope for a better future that resonates in many comments. Disappointing because so many comments still refer to “models” and to ideological camps instead of addressing how we can together work to solve the mystery of what the causes of mental illnesses are and what the best interventions to prevent and treat mental illnesses may be. 
 
In particular I am struck with the difficulty some commentators seem to have with recognizing how it is that we find out the best answers to those very important questions. That is, how science works.
 
We do not find out these answers by staking out battlegrounds based on our opinion and belief and defending them against all comers. On the contrary, we accept that all of us come to every consideration with built in biases and perspectives that may or may not be valid – or that may or may be more or less valid. We need to be able to accept that: in ourselves as well as in others. We must also then seek how we can best wade through conflicting perspectives, not to “win” for our own viewpoint and to be right, but to “win” on the side of being likely to be less wrong. Even, if that means letting go of our opinions.
 
The tool that we use to help us do that is one that to date has provided us with the best method to be less wrong most of the time. Not to find the truth, but to save us from everlasting error (to paraphrase Brecht). And that tool is the scientific method. This does not mean that opinion or perspective or experience is not important. All these are important, and all these can be tossed fairly and properly into the crucible of the methodology that is the foundation of scientific study. This does not mean that science can get us the best answer immediately. Science is conducted by people and is subject to the same social and cultural influences that all aspects of our lives are subject to. Science however does have a self-correcting capacity based on repeated experiment and an unrelenting challenge of accepted “truths”. In the long run, this will give us a better way forward than opinion or belief or any other framework that we want to champion.
 

Be the first to leave a comment

What do you think?


Filter by category

Filter by date

Blog Tag Cloud

adhd anxiety disorders attention award awards behaviour bipolar blog brain & neurology bullying canada care carter center conference confidentiality control coping criminal justice system cruelty cutting depression discrimination doctor driving eating disorders

Recent Comment

This is a great set of comments and rings very true. 

I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles.  After all, scientists are human beings too!  But science is different than scientists. 

The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict.  Science is not about finding truth.  It is only about being less wrong most of the time.  The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe.  The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct!  It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”.  It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.

t does not drive our beliefs.  It does however challenge our beliefs.  In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context.  That is one of the great features of science. 

But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding.  And thus it is nasty, brutish and long.  As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.

By Christina Carew on May 11th

You can find us here too!

  • image
  • image
  • image

We would like to say thanks...

Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.

  • image
  • image
  • image

Helpful Links