Reply to comment

 As a Chemistry major, I was surprised that I accepted the idea of "loopy" science so easily.  When I mentioned the idea of loopy science to my roommate who is also a chemistry major she did not accept the idea at all and was rather concerned about it.  Her major concern was that if science can't establish any "truth" then what exactly are we taught in all our chemistry courses? Were they all lies then? I think that the "truths" we are currently being taught are merely just the current observations/research of the last ten years or so that have been weaved into basic guidelines and presented in textbooks.  There is reason why textbooks are always being updated and new editions every couple of years.  Science is always changing and our interpretation of the observations we make are also always changing as well.

I personally preferred Descartes' story about the brain because if it were all just "neurons/matter" I feel as though we would have a much better understanding about the brain and how to treat various psychological conditions.  While I have not observed the "soul" or anything, I feel that there is a spiritual aspect to it that can be equated to having a religion and certain beliefs.  The idea that the brain is just physical entities makes me wonder why depression can't be fully treated by anti-depressants if it is just a "chemical imbalance of the brain"; here is an article I read about anti-depressants not being able to cure depression: http://www.nature.com/scientificamericanmind/journal/v17/n4/full/scientificamericanmind0806-8b.html.  Even though I prefer one story, I know that the combination of the two stories allows for a broader interpretation of how the brain works and the behavior associated with it.