I think that many forms of science are similar to religion. Neither science nor religion addresses the elements of consciousness or spirituality. I think that most feel that the “disease model” is primarily used in depression. By using the “disease model,” one presumes pathology. It attempts to use scientific method. The “disease model” also presumes a progression of pathology. With that being said, the reality is that it is not what we know; it is what we do not know specific to depression, mental illness, or addiction.
The question about scientific method is what is subjective and what is objective. As it pertains to issues associated with mental or emotional health, the honest answer to the issue of what is subjective and what is objective has to involve chaos. Chaos involves ambiguity and defines definition.
What bothers me and should bother others is that the process of scientific method is influenced by bias of the party doing the research may also include who is financing the research. There are other influences that are not definable and just are. There are controls inherent in the process of this type of research are certainly ambiguous and not consistent. Actually, because of the usage or manipulation of controls, there is an issue of predetermination involved. It is quite possible that end result is what is wanted and the controls are implement in the fashion. With scientific method being construed as religion of a type, control is the issue.
How do use objectivity as a paradigm with depression or other forms of mental distress? I have a background in statistics. In the experiment, I truly believe that it is important to control the variables. At least, those that we have control over. You quantify what you know and the law of variance usually takes a parabolic form. Empiricism assumes that the testing to be measured, predicted, and repeated. It presumes that everything and anything can be measured. Anything that can not be measured is deemed false.
Since objectivity can not nor will ever define the personal experience: the very thought of suggesting objectivity as it pertains to addiction or depression is capricious and dehumanizing. It presumes a type of mechanistic process. Scientific method, including the disease model, does not allow for an open system. Even the greatest scientist that ever lived, Albert Einstein., made that admission. Consciously or unconsciously, it presumes the position of superiority on the part of the party doing the research. It has, is and will always be about control. By the very challenge of the status quo of the disease model, it is highly unlikely that many professional who have a vested economic advantage to give up status quo. By not buying into the illusion, there is risk of ridicule.
When many of the “wonder drugs” were found by accident, shame on those the perpetuate the myth of objectivity. Those that are awestruck by these discoveries are naïve. Stating that these discoveries were made through linear thinking and through a closed system is a lie. Stating that some one, an Einstein, who used intuition and was open to a Higher Power is the truth. Spirituality and real science compliment each other. One does not sit in the ivory tower and the other lives in a poem.