Unexpected findings and promoting monocausal claims, a cautionary tale.

[alex3619]

What they miss is that if their premises are unfounded their valid arguments are unsound (a technical philosophical point) and therefore wrong.

Hence the rise of empirical rationalism, which is founded on the principle of both evidence and reason, and there is always room for doubt and more questions. Critical rationalism and pancritical rationalism are really subsets of empirical rationalism.

 

[Snowdrop]

One could argue that she has no problem at all believing in a monocausal illness with a monoeffectual treatment.

As we know there is no illness cfs it is made up. It is a symptom not an illness. So to her there's this illness of chronic fatigue (one symptom) and it's treatment while two pronged both are directed at treating this one symptom. The deconditioning is secondary--it happens as a result of the primary cause (psychological) the false illness beliefs. Therefore the primary treatment of the core cause of illness is a single psychological treatment for what to her is supposedly a multifactoral illness?

While people who use the term cfs may acknowledge other symptoms if I remember correctly the Oxford criteria only require fatigue.

Is this a stretch?

 

[Woolie]

You have a point, @Snowdrop, it looks pretty monocausal from this point of view. But I'd arge that this account doesn't work on its own, so you have to keep on adding bits and extras to describe the difficult phenomena, it gets complex.

I don't actually have a problem with a monocausal claim at all. Certainly, you have to recognise that the cause of ME might be different in different individuals. But that is not the same thing as offering a multicausal model. Its just differentiation - and certainly the psychosocial models we currently have don't seem to recognise this anyway. There is no reason why the cause in a particular individual could not be simple and singular. With multiple knock-on effects. It might not be, but it very well could be. Certainly the best place to start, before launching into more complex models.

All this BS about what a "complex illness" ME is. I hate that. Why is ME always referred to as a "complex illness" whereas cancer isn't? Or MS? It seems to be code to allow space for psychosocial explanations.

 

[Snow Leopard]

All this BS about what a "complex illness" ME is. I hate that. Why is ME always referred to as a "complex illness" whereas cancer isn't? Or MS? It seems to be code to allow space for psychosocial explanations.

Both cancer and MS are definitely "complex illnesses". To answer your question, I think it is that people don't like to admit our ignorance - unless its impossible to deny.

One could argue that she has no problem at all believing in a monocausal illness with a monoeffectual treatment.

As we know there is no illness cfs it is made up. It is a symptom not an illness. So to her there's this illness of chronic fatigue (one symptom) and it's treatment while two pronged both are directed at treating this one symptom. The deconditioning is secondary--it happens as a result of the primary cause (psychological) the false illness beliefs. Therefore the primary treatment of the core cause of illness is a single psychological treatment for what to her is supposedly a multifactoral illness?

While people who use the term cfs may acknowledge other symptoms if I remember correctly the Oxford criteria only require fatigue.

Is this a stretch?

Yes, I think it is clear you haven't actually read the full paper.

 

[alex3619]

Why is ME always referred to as a "complex illness" whereas cancer isn't? Or MS? It seems to be code to allow space for psychosocial explanations.

I am not sure that is the case. Its more that complexity means that science progresses slowly, as in cancer for example, and this gives huge scope for psychobabble to make claims that will not be disproved for a long time.

 

[Woolie]

That's just my point, @alex3619. That all these illnesses are "complex". And poorly understood. But the word "complex" is specially reserved for us. I feel that the the adjective "complex" is used as a segue into "complex interactions between biological, psychological and social factors", and that is a segue into - well, you know what.

 

[Bob]

I don't actually have a problem with a monocausal claim at all. Certainly, you have to recognise that the cause of ME might be different in different individuals. But that is not the same thing as offering a multicausal model. Its just differentiation - and certainly the psychosocial models we currently have don't seem to recognise this anyway. There is no reason why the cause in a particular individual could not be simple and singular. With multiple knock-on effects. It might not be, but it very well could be. Certainly the best place to start, before launching into more complex models.

Ah, I was assuming that "monocausal" was referring to the cause of illness across the patient population; not in individual patents. Have I got that wrong? If it's referring to the cause if illness in individual patients then it's an even more baffling abstract than I had thought.

 

[Woolie]

Ah, I was assuming that "monocausal" was referring to the cause of illness across the patient population; not in individual patents. Have I got that wrong? If it's referring to the cause if illness in individual patients then it's an even more baffling abstract then I had thought.

Looking at it again, you're right. They're talking about heterogeneity, not multifactorial causal models. Should just say that then.