Subject: Re: BHA: Biological reductivism <--> 'indexicalism'
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:29:09 -0500


Well howdy, Shiv.

You wrote:

> What follows is a post-mortem of the contents (including 'tone'/ 'tenor')
of your mail.

A post-mortem?  Sorry, reports of my death are an exaggeration.

> 1. "Smelling a rat, I read this article."
>
> a. Instead of enquiring objectively, you let your pre-conceived
notions/prejudices intrude into the territory [or do they get the better of
'you']. You have thus found out what you had set to find out!

I must say, I packed a lot into "smelling a rat"....

Enquiring objectively?  What exactly is that?  The notion of an Archimedian
sort of objectivity has long been demolished.  From RTS onward Bhasker has
consistently maintained that knowledge is a *social* activity.  That entails
recognizing that values are intrinsically part of any investigative
practice -- but it does not entail the idea that the knowledge gained is
inherently false or distorted.  "Epistemic relativity, judgmental
rationality."  Maybe you think I'm unobjective simply because I disagree
with you.  But when I smell a rat, I'm reflecting the intellectual,
political and ethical values I place on checking the evidence someone
provides, especially when I suspect it's specious.  And of course, had your
article thorougly supported your assertion, then despite my initial doubts I
would be forced to concede your point.

So let's return to your original claim, the one I disputed:

>    For the recent discovery on how (any type of) OCD - Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder - is reducible to genes, see
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/page.cfm?objectid=13548514&method=full&siteid=50143
>

On what grounds did I dispute your claim?  On the grounds that the article
did not in fact say what you purported.  It did *not* say that "any type of"
OCD is reducible to genes.  It *only* said that a particular genetic
mutation appeared in two out of thirty patients with OCD.  Whether I'm
objective or not, the article still states that that it was two out of
thirty patients.  Consequently, your assertion that *any* type of OCD is
reducible to genes is extremely premature at best, and possibly just
false -- certainly unwarranted at the present time.  So the shoe is on the
other foot: you're the one who found out what you had set to find out.  You
could not be objective in reading the article.  The same can be said of your
later charge against me:

> a. Astonishingly, in 13 lines of your mail, you have decided the issue in
a 'totalizing' fashion, whereas, scientists have spend decades (and still
are) on the same. Indeed, to paraphrase Bhaskar, you would like to LEGISLATE
IN ADVANCE. The verdict is out even before the result of the enquiries are
on our tables! This is an obverse form of foundationalism.
>

Shiv, *you* came out with a verdict ("any type of OCD is reducible to
genes") long, long before the results of the enquiries are on our tables.
Talk about legislating in advance!  For all anyone knows, perhaps some types
OCD result from a childhood illness, an undetected parasite, an allergy to
plastics, or some other cause.

But I'll admit to the "totalizing" character of my dismissal, and in two
ways.  (1) You claimed that the article states that all forms of OCD result
come from the genes. I demonstrated that the article says no such thing, and
therefore you're totally wrong about that statement being in the article.
(2) The fact that at least some types of OCD are *at all* treatable by
psychotherapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy (the two major "talk therapy"
approaches to depression, bipolar disorder, and OCD) means that those types
of OCD cannot simply be reduced to genetic causes.  The talk therapy and the
restructuring of cognitive processes that results must have some sort of
effect on the brain in order to have a long-term therapeutic (as opposed to
palliative) effect.  If a "totalizing" critique means demonstrating that
someone's claims are totally wrong, I'm pleased to be guilty.

>
> b. It should simultaneously enlighten why the findings of Copernicus,
Galileo, Newton, Darwin et al. were initially received with scepticism.
Those mechanisms have not disappeared; they are present in 2003 too, and
reflected in and through your superficial incredulity. Bhaskar describes
'real negation' as 'an absence from consciousness' (DPF).
>

"Smelling a rat": this phrase demonstrates that I possess healthy
skepticism, which is essential to the scientific attitude.  However, the
fact that some ideas are received skeptically proves nothing in itself,
least of all that the ideas so greeted are therefore correct.  Some people
"found" proof of spontaneous generation; some people today "find" evidence
for "intelligent design" (i.e. there must be a God to create the intricacies
of the body); some people "find" that extraterrestrial life forms have taken
over the US Congress.  (Okay, the latter might be true.)  As for your bit on
real negation, it's an irrelevant non sequitur.

> c. The doctrine of 'ontological monovalence' seeks to transcend a purely
actual notion of reality. Similarly, humans too cannot be described in terms
of their dispositions, interactions, linguistic skills, etc.
>

"Humans cannot be described in terms of their dispositions, interactions,
linguistic skills, etc."??  This is perverse.  Even if you reduce humans to
their genes, genes have dispositions and interactions.

As for ontological monovalence, you've got the concept entirely backwards.
Bhaskar *rejects* ontological monovalence in order to transcend actualism.

>
> d. The response also suffers from 'indexicalism': the 'assumption that
only the present.exists' (DPF). That is how explications can be reduced to
mere 'talk therapy', as you do. The mechanisms to which I refer to have been
in existence since millions of years and have metamorphosed now. This is
another way of understanding 'absence'. Indeed as Bhaskar says in the
Introduction to DPF: 'In this study, I aim to revindicate negativity.
Indeed, by the time we are through, I would like the reader to see the
positive as a tiny, but important, ripple on the surface of a sea of
negativity.'
>

I don't see how my response suffers from indexicalism -- in fact, in making
that charge against me, you contradict yourself.  How?  Because your
argument that we reduce to our genetic make-up means we can do nothing to
change our individual selves (only our present form exists), but now you
also want to say we aren't limited to our present state.  That's a
contradiction.  (It's delightful to see you admit the truth in your subject
line: biological reductivism and indexicalism do indeed imply each other.)
In contrast, my argument is that we don't reduce to our genes and we are
able to alter our individual selves in various ways, hence we are not
condemned to our present condition.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out what you mean when you say that I
reduce explications to mere "talk therapy."  First, I was far from saying
that talk therapy can ever be "mere."  Quite the opposite: I maintain that
talk therapy is remarkably powerful, for it can alter the brain itself.
Second, I was not reducing explications to talk therapy (mere or otherwise),
a sentence that doesn't even make sense.

Meanwhile, your reference to negativity is another irrelevant non sequitur.

> e. Can you cite empirical evidence for change of brain chemistry? My
counterintuitive reply is that much of brain chemistry is determined at the
embryonic stage.
>

Can I cite empirical evidence for change of brain chemistry?  Yes, I can!

Oh, you mean "Please cite such evidence."  Well, when I put it so nicely,
how can I refuse?  Here are few articles, which I cite along with quotes
from their conclusions:

Arthur L. Brody et al., "Regional brain metabolic changes in patients with
major depression treated with either paroxetine or interpersonal therapy:
preliminary findings," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 (7), Jul
2001,
631-640.  "Subjects with MDD [major depression disorder] had regional brain
metabolic abnormalities at baseline that tended to normalize with treatment.
Regional metabolic changes appeared similar with the 2 forms of treatment
[i.e., paroxetine and interpersonal therapy]."

Harold A. Sackeim, "Functional Brain Circuits in Major Depression and
Remission," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 (7), Jul 2001, 649-650.
"Despite the specifics of the regional changes that were identified, both
studies found that the changes in functional brain activity following
pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy were remarkably similar."

V. Paquette et al., "'Change the mind and you change the brain': effects of
cognitive-behavioral therapy on the neural correlates of spider phobia,"
Neuroimage, Vol 18 (2), Feb 2003, 401-409.  "These findings suggest that a
psychotherapeutic approach, such as CBT [cognitive-behavioral therapy], has
the potential to modify the dysfunctional neural circuitry associated with
anxiety disorders. They further indicate that the changes made at the mind
level, within a psychotherapeutic context, are able to functionally 'rewire'
the brain."

I think I've made my case: if thought itself can alter the brain's wiring,
functioning and chemistry, then the mind cannot be reduced to biological
elements.  But I do want to make one final point about "smelling a rat":
this phrase is *scientific evidence* that I'm a far better and more amusing
writer than you are or ever will be, Shiv.  How can I say with so much
assurance, "or ever will be"?  Because of our theories.  I did and will
continue to improve through (social) practices, but you -- alas! -- are
forever bound to the limits of your genes.

Give 'em enough rope....

Cheers and beers, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---