So, I just read a post that talked about the confusion around the causes and appropriate treatments of mental disorder. I think this confusion comes from forgetting to engage in reflexivity, and this is something that all of us are guilty of – lay people and scientists alike. Resorting to reactive, polemic thinking comes from the desire to save face, and to relieve frustrations. These are human tendencies, and just because one puts on a lab coat, and decides to be impartial, doesn’t mean they leave these blind spots at the door. If scientists who study the mind spent a fraction of the amount of time looking at their own minds, and their motivations for supporting certain initiatives, we may have a more creative and innovative mental health care system.

When we look at what evidence-based really means, it is that someone has decided to put money into something that seems to work in order to prove that it does. If the scientific world wears just as many of it’s own blinders as the rest of us, and it does, then we miss out on actually studying and allowing alternative initiatives to become evidence-based. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries come out of left field, and if we don’t allow for new angles, we then lose the real purpose of scientific inquiry. 

To pretend that science is impartial is to say that humans are capable of this. We can get close, if we try, but I would argue that the science world itself does not possess the holy grail of true perception. When it decides to acknowledge the influence of politics and culture and and economics, when it really examines the role of reflexivity, we will all be better off.