psychiatry

I did not know that neurons had glycogen, but apparently most glycogen, at least, is within astrocytes and not neurons. That requires explaining why astrocitic glycogen causes a neuron's behaviour disorder identical to however bipolar disorder is "defined". Seems a tall order.

I assumed they were mostly dependent on continuous fuel supply in the bloodstream, glucose, ketonic bodies, unlike the liver and skeletal muscle. Did not know they had a reserve, small as it could be, that meant anything. I was apparently wrong. :)

"Computational biologists are trying to untangle the most complex “black boxes” on Earth.", I don't think they are, they are trying to imitate them, not understanding them. I think.

I bet most of them know black boxes cannot be understood without dissection and looking at their innards directly, and experimentally with solid hypotheses grounded in scientific theory, not hunches and guesses from correlations and expert consensuses, starting from "constructs". But I might be wrong on some of that one.

"If you’re trying to solve a problem of this scale, you need as much data as possible.", not necessarily, more data can lead to spurious, non-causal correlations, that when incentives like publishing bias are present can lead fields astray for decades, or, knock, knock, centuries as in old medicine and psychiatry.

Particularly when the relevant observables: the diagnoses, lack objectivity. Subjectivity/intersubjectivity galore! in the dependent variables...

And that claim when it applies to the brain and mind seems lacking in logical support, there is no specific argument, it's a claim, a proposition. But I don't know anything specific about that claim/proposition.

Looking for ideas in real science proceeds from having a scientific theory and unexplained observations that are falsifiable, objective and in principle amenable to experimentation, to look for ideas, why would anyone bother otherwise? ;)

Looking for a lost key is a poor example of scientific progress, would you not agree when stated thus?.

"massive alien computer[s]" do not exist, using them as an example sounds fallacious to me. :)

Widgets don't exist objectively, in the real world, that does not mean it's wrong to believe in them. Using widget as an example of scientific research would be erroneous, precisely because they don't exist in the real world. Science and it's predictions do. That does not mean using widget for X, an unknown, particular if replaceable by Y, Z, etc., is wrong... I think. Widgets are popular with economists.

Making a lot of progress when at least half published research has, at least some, irreproducibility sounds disingenous to me. Sorry :)

As for reading specifics about causality in mental disorders, it's not that I am dogmatic, but to me, aprioristically, the probability that ANY research paper related to psychiatry is correct decreases as more are published.

Given the number of false ones has increased, and given the tendency without invoking ANY causality, agnostically that is, will most likely increase, that means if at somepoint in the future there is one that is actually true, it's likelihood of existing in the future, the ratio of that paper over all false ones approaches zero as time goes by... and publishing increases. Would you disagree stated thus? :)

ALL those claims about mental disorders at some point have been proven either wrong, useless, or actually supporting the claim of the pseudoscientific nature of the whole field.

So, if aprioristically there, out there, exists a research paper that proves beyond doubt ANYTHING about psychiatry it would be all over the news, I would know of it's existence without looking for it. Like my lost key Jedi-like falling into my pocket, without me recurring to Jedi mind tricks. :)

Why would I invest time looking for it?.

That has not happened, and to me, will not happen, truly that is.

So, I will not devote time, short as it is, reading "causal" or "explanatory" papers about mental disorders, it's likelihood of being true is slim today, not in the future, and they have no Scientific Theory to claim they have proven anything. Sorry, :)

But, those are eloquently put points. Thanks, I really enjoyed your comment. :)