In today’s information heavy culture, science is accepted as fact. If a discovery is made, people think that means that absolute truth has been achieved.
In Kuhn’s Structures Of Scientific Revolutions, the author demonstrates that science, too, displays elements of subjectivity. He writes about various trends in science that he calls “paradigms”. Sometimes, paradigms undergo major shifts (such as when Einstein formulated his theories), and at these times, peoples’ views of scientific truth change, as well.
I often think of science as one way of looking at things– as a particular lens. I think it is especially good at describing phenomena that we already know exist. For example, a new kind of rock is found, and, once found, science describes and catalogs the rock.
Can it predict? Sometimes better than others.
I often wonder, if there were no rainbows, or had never been, would s scientist come forward and say, “We should be seeing gigantic multi-colored curves in the air sometimes after rain showers”?
I don’t think science is good at predicting what has not already been perceived. It has other shortcomings, as well.
Why do I bring all of this up? Since the current mode of defining and treating schizophrenia is based on a scientific paradigm (or medical science), there may be some aspects to the illness that we have not perceived or accepted.
There may be mysteries to the disease that we cannot understand until our perspective evolves.