Perkins presents kind of a reductionist view of addiction in this article. Two questions popped into my mind as I read the article:
- If I remember my college logic classes the phrase “necessary and sufficient” applies to establishing scientific causality. The biochemistry described is necessary to explain addiction but is it sufficient? She lists what could be classified as contributory causes, but these do not enhance the argument for sufficiency.
- Once you have established a cause that is necessary and sufficient, is simply removing the cause going to reverse the syndrome? (Intuitively I would say no, but my brain is starting to hurt. Thanks LF;-)
I would have to read more of her work to see if she offers a broader view than behaviorism.