Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
by Bob Collier

19 January 2004
Issue 77

A few days ago, I read a news item about a just published study in America, of children diagnosed with 'ADHD', in which it was again confidently asserted that "ADHD is genetic".

Last week in my local newspaper, a young soccer prospect who had just been signed to a club in Europe was quoted as saying, "I inherited my interest in soccer from my dad. It's genetic."

Such appears to be the popularised understanding of the word 'genetic' these days - that it means little more than that a parent and their offspring have noticeably similar behavioural inclinations.

Judging from what I read about that latest 'ADHD' study together with some of what I've read about 'ADHD' over the past year or so (and leaving aside for the moment the knowledge that the 'diagnosis' of 'ADHD' is a fabrication to begin with), there's very little difference between the perception of 'genetics' provided by Canberra's young soccer hopeful and that of many of the so-called 'scientists' who are currently engaged in studies of human development.

It would appear that there are some self-styled 'experts' in that field who now would have us believe that there is no such thing as learned behaviour - that, for example, a musically gifted child can not have the development of those talents explained by the fact that they have been immersed since birth in the musical lifestyle of musical parents; nor can the emergence of a highly- skilled circus performer be explained as the product of their growing up in the world of the family circus; and a socially inept child can not be as they are because their parents are socially inept and consequently unable to teach their child what they don't know themselves. It's all 'genetic', I'm told - these behaviours are transmitted biologically from the parents to the child through the simple combination of sperm and egg. The resulting foetus then apparently carries its preordained behaviours through nine months in its mother's womb while supposedly unaffected by its experiences during that time before emerging into the outside world as a baby with a brain that is totally impervious to sensory input.

Peter Kramer, in his book 'Listening to Prozac', makes this observation:

"Our culture is caught in a frenzy of biological materialism. Newspaper columns, sit-coms, comic strips, talk shows - our public banter is replete with corollaries of the thesis that biology is destiny. When we laugh, if we do, at the claims that the genes for noticing dirty dishes, asking directions, and making commitments are absent on the Y chromosome, or that the gene for channel-surfing with the TV buzz box is present only there, it is because these beliefs are not distant from ones we actually hold."

The point has been made a number of times in the Candlelight Project, by others who have a better understanding of these things than I do, that there's very little science involved in biological psychiatry (some would say none at all).

However, a major problem seems to be that that doesn't really matter. According to Carl Sagan, in his 1996 book 'The Demon- Haunted World', "Ninety-five percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate" - and, presumably, the situation is much the same amongst other nationalities.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with theories and hypotheses, even wild ones. I think it would be great, in fact, if everybody had at least a couple of theories about everything - that would certainly keep attempts to explain and understand ourselves and the world we live in ticking over quite nicely. Whenever somebody says to me, "My theory is ...", I'm usually perfectly happy to listen. It's then my choice as to whether I reject the theory or accept it as useful for the time being.

However, when somebody starts off with, "It's a scientifically proven fact ...", you can bet your bottom dollar my response will be, "Oh, yeah? Show me your evidence."

And, if there's one thing I've learned about biological psychiatry, it's that it's totally shameless in its habitual presentation of the hypothetical as rock solid scientific fact.

So, here's one way we can sort the wheat from the crap. This is called the 'Six rules of evidential reasoning' and is adapted from 'A Field Guide to Critical Thinking' by James Lett, an associate teacher of anthropology at the Department of Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, Florida.

I'm told that this is the basis upon which REAL scientists operate.

Six Rules of Evidential Reasoning (FiLCHeRS)

FALSIFIABILITY

It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; it would instead be making an emotive statement rather than a factual assertion. It describes value orientation.

The first variety of non-falsifiable statements is the undeclared claim - a statement that is so broad or vague that it lacks any propositional content. The undeclared claim is basically unintelligible and consequently meaningless.

"Crystal therapists can use pieces of quartz to restore balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy."

What is unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced spiritual energy had been, or had not been, balanced by the application of crystal therapy? The undeclared claim has the advantage that virtually any evidence that could be adduced could be interpreted as congruent with the claim.

The second variety of non-falsifiable statements involves the use of the multiple out - an inexhaustible series of excuses intended to explain away the evidence that would seem to falsify the claim.

"The healer didn't heal that person."
"That's because that person didn't have enough faith."

"There's no real evidence to support the UFO theory."
"That's because there's a secret government conspiracy."

LOGIC

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises. It is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. An invalid argument can be recognized by the simple method of counterexample - if you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

All dogs have fleas. Xavier has fleas. Therefore Xavier is a dog.

Invalid - Counterexample: Xavier is a cat who has fleas.

All dogs have fleas. Xavier is a dog. Therefore Xavier has fleas.

Unsound - Not all dogs have fleas.

Often, a given premise requires additional knowledge about the claim that would require empirical investigation.

"The 16th century Turkish admiral Piri Re'is made world maps so astoundingly accurate that they could have been only made with satellite photographs." - von Daniken, 'Chariot of the Gods?'

Invalid: any number of other techniques could be used to produce accurate maps.

Unsound: the Piri Re'is map contains many gross inaccuracies.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive - that is, all of the available evidence must be considered.

You just can't take the evidence that supports your theory and discard the rest.

"Jeane Dixon predicted that George Bush would win the election. She is a real psychic."

True, but she also predicted JFK would lose in 1960, World War III would start in 1958, and Fidel Castro would die in 1969.

HONESTY

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

This is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness.

"But I saw him bend the spoon the first time. I don't know why he can't do it anymore. It must be an elusive phenomenon."

This usually boils down to an injunction against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out. But you must also accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion forthrightly. Typical symptoms include denial, avoidance and rationalization.

REPLICABILITY

If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

This is a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experimental result is never adequate in and of itself. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error.

SUFFICIENCY

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:

1. the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant;

2. extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; and

3. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.

The burden of proof rests with the claimant for the simple reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as the presence of confirming evidence.

"Because no one has disproved all UFO reports, the ones that are left prove that they do exist."

"Because no one has given me evidence that God exists, it stands to reason that He doesn't."

"Adolph Hitler is living in Argentina. You can't prove that he isn't so he must be."

It only means that it is possible and not conclusive that it is true. Argument could reduce it to highly improbable. But logical possibility is not the same as established reality. The claimant must produce evidence.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the obvious reason of balance. I need more evidence that aliens performed medical experiments on you than you saying that it rained for ten minutes last Tuesday.

Testimony is always inadequate for paranormal claims because people can lie or make a mistake. Expertise is not a guarantee of infallibility or lack of motivation to lie. Credentials, knowledge and experience cannot, in themselves, be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim. Sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of a testimony.

Conclusion

The first three rules - falsifiability, logic and comprehensibility - are all logically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. The last three rules - honesty, replicability, and sufficiency - are all pragmatically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. Passing all six tests will justify you in placing considerable confidence in the claim but does not guarantee that the claim is true. There could be new disconfirming evidence tomorrow. It only guarantees that you have sold your belief for a fair price and that it has not been filched from you.

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what skepticism means - to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.

Note particularly item 1. under 'Sufficiency' - and remember it should you encounter any unsubstantiated pronouncements from the 'ADHD experts' - "THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ANY CLAIM RESTS ON THE CLAIMANT". Otherwise, of course, we're perfectly justified in ignoring it.

Finally, a comment on the claim that "ADHD is genetic" from Barry Turner, Lecturer in Law at the University of Lincoln, in England.

"I am absolutely sick of reading the expression 'genetic' in relation to ADHD. ADHD is genetic only in the sense that human beings are genetic. If they mean that this is a 'genetic defect' then they are obliged to identify the chromosome on which the defective gene is present. It goes without saying that they have not been able to do this any more than they can demonstrate serious scientific evidence for the chemical imbalance theories.

Blue eyes are genetic.

Height is genetic.

Having a set of lungs is genetic.

Dear oh dear! When will these junk scientists ... go and find themselves a nice harmless hobby and quit making such stupid comments about genetics and chemical imbalances."

ADHD-Report.com: The concerned parents' guide to childrens' attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD/ADD)

Contact
Resources