Two sides of the coin

I was already halfway through my Physics bachelor degree when I rediscovered philosophy. And so, at that time I had a certain scientific approach to nature. It goes this way: first, one learns the theory related to the matter. Then you see the phenomenon in the laboratory, with all the instruments and stuff. Finally, using the previously accepted theories, one contributes to solving the scientific problem. This way of doing science is, in my opinion, very valuable and a great deal of hard work, where creativity, knowledge, patience, communication and social interaction get interlinked in order to get results that the society claims to appreciate. Obviously, this picture of science is a generalization and it's not exactly correct under deep scrutiny, however, this is the way that I felt things ought to be through my career in Physics.

But some years later, I decided that I wanted to pursue a Master in History and Philosophy of Science. And then I started hearing about different philosophical theories, which considered aspects regarding different sciences: medicine, mathematics, physics, psychology, etc. And then, the confusion began: which one is the correct philosophical answer? which philosophy is the right one, or at least, the best one?

That there is a philosophical discussion going on about any matter means that, in fact, there is no consensus about it. That means that there are people with reasons to believe that something is the case and some others that think the others are not right. What I did not really know is that, which philosophical idea is the best one, depends on something I was not used to in science: it depends on what is the price that you are willing to pay. That is, it depends on what ideas are you willing to concede, or renounce to. 

An example of this could be: "Freedom of speech is sacred. Everyone must have the means to express their thoughts". Then, the price to pay in this case is that one must concede that hate speech must have the same opportunity too. If one thinks that such thing is not acceptable, one could fix it then to "Freedom of speech is sacred. All the non-harmful ideas must have the means to express their thoughts". Then, one owes an account about what ideas will count as non-harmful. Non-harmful to who? How harmful does it have to be then? and so, other interests and values play a role.

What about something, allegedly, less controversial? Is schizophrenia an illness? Well, this one seems obvious: it gets diagnosed by a specialized doctor, they have to take medicines to get well, and they seem generally unwell to others. But what you haven't really thought of then, is that the person with schizophrenia doesn't believe that he is unwell. He thinks that something very unusual is the case, for example, that he his internal organs are rotting, decomposing. But what he thinks that he needs to do something about his organs; he doesn't think that he is unwell or schizophrenic. One might argue then that he is not seeing the world as it is, and that means his brain is not ok. Well, but it is also the case that many normal people do not see the world objectively either, some of them might believe in voodoo, or maybe buy things they don't really need, and still, we don't consider that they are sick. What about wrong reasoning? That can be a criterion. But the fact is that many cognitive scientists have devised tests to try to prove what is the reasoning fault behind people with schizophrenia, but these patients score just as well as average, normal, people. And so, the price for considering schizophrenia a disease, a mental health condition, or an illness could be to include normal people in it (people that believe in voodoo, maybe), or people who need drugs to enhance their cognition (coffee counts?), or people who make a big mistake about what they think is true.

This doesn't mean that there is never going to be a satisfactory answer. There is, most of the time. What has to happen is that you have to be open to new ideas, different points of view, new considerations. Sometimes, we have to give up an idea that we think it was an obvious truth. Sometimes we have to make room for doubt and openness. Sometimes just to clarify the conditions in which things apply. In any case, it is worth seeing both sides of the coin.