The height of close-minded science

It strikes me as remarkable how dedicatedly unscientific so much media and "science" is today when it comes to studying and understanding people.

Virtually every story I hear on the radio, see on TV or read which relates to people or behavior starts from the same unexamined, limiting point of departure. Here is the format of the stories:

1) Some oddity of human behavior is noticed (I'm listening to a story now about people who mix perceptions -- they hear color or see sounds).

2) An incredibly complicated theory is advanced about how the phenomenon is caused by the brain. In other words, the assumption is it is a brain problem - the "science" consists of trying to find proof after-the-fact of the point-of-assumption.

3) The person advancing the theory admits they really don't know, there is much to learn and it will likely take a lot of money and time to begin to figure it out.

The problem with this?

The religious-like, unexamined, unquestionable tenet that the brain is the answer.

How is this science?

Wouldn't science examine a phenomenon to understand as much about it as possible which, based on data, would then lead to the advancement of a theory which would, if in the theory has a shred of truth, provide predictions of new data which, when looked for, could be found? Also, I would expect that correct data might lead to the development of practical applications that, surprise, surprise, would do some good.

I'm not a historian by any means, but I'm guessing that many of the great advances in science, engineering and other such fields have been made by questioning fundamental tenets. Those people who, instead of going along with the "everyone believes data" which have never been tested or proved, look again at the unquestioned everyone-knows. And by doing so, they discover something new, fundamental or even world-changing.

Just because religions have said that Man is more than a collection of chemicals (i.e. spiritual in nature) and religions have never particularly dealt in proof or a scientific approach to data does NOT itself provide proof of the opposite, i.e. that "all is brain."

I don't know of any proof that exists that Man is not spiritual. Similarly, I've not heard of any proof that shows that everything about Man can be explained by brain activity -- in fact quite the contrary even the "brain-is-everything" folks constantly talk about how much they don't know and how complicated it all is. As mentioned above, they constantly seem to be in search of data to validate their assumption point.

That just seems so backwards. If you have a fundamental assumption point that is correct, it should lead you to new and interesting data -- a scientific exploration based on a tentative theory. Reversing it -- finding interesting or new data and then trying to figure out how it is explained by your assumption point is not science. Honestly, it is more like what we think of as religion.

Let me be clear -- I'm not suggesting that science should unilaterally throw out the brain-is-everything idea. What I am suggesting is that its proponents look very unscientific by assuming it without question. The High Priests of Authority have no place in science.

That this belief is more a matter of religious fervor than scientific thought is confirmed by the rabid frothing at the mouth and dismissive sarcasm that seems to accompany any public questioning of the "divine principle" that the brain is everything.

Let's skip the rhetoric and the arguments on both side -- let me just ask a simple question. What if the ultimate nature of Man is that some non-chemical, non-physical element is involved? Wouldn't that be the most important fact in the entire study of human nature?

Until a proof exists that it is NOT the case (not just a lack of proof that it IS the case), wouldn't it be prudent to approach related issues with a little be more circumspection?

I'm just suggesting that perhaps we could loosen up a little bit on the fixed, starting-point idea that "everything is explained by the brain." There are so many things not explained by that theory, the results of that strand of thought (electric shock as therapy, horrendous institutional abuses, the drugging of 10 million kids in the U.S. alone for diseases for which no physical confirmation exists) are so offensive it seems to me that we should just grow up to the intellectual integrity and maturity of being open to questioning it at least a little.