Notices

View Poll Results: Is Psychiatry Unscientific?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 38.10%
  • No

    13 61.90%
Results 1 to 62 of 62

Thread: Psychiatry- Unscientific ?

  1. #1 Psychiatry- Unscientific ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Here I put forth an open question to you all-

    Is PSYCHIATRY a legitimate science ?

    If so, why?

    If no, Why not?

    I understand this may seem a silly question to some but after much research into this field I have found many agree it is a real science and just as many think it is not.

    Those that state 'of course it is!' -Please, back up your claim. Where is the scientific method, proof and findings? I hear those in the field claim 'Its a biological disease' yet, where is the evidence this is true? links to research papers/journals etc. ?

    Could it be possible there is something going on here? Another cause perhaps?

    Then those of you who disagree and say that psychiatry is NOT true science and therefore unscientific- Please, do the same. Present proof and back up your claims.
    Many will claim psychiatry is merely for social control. If you think this to be the case where can you show that this particular science is 'fake' ?

    I wish those interested to have an open discussion on the topic here..


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The greater the number of variables and more uncertain the relationships between those variables, the more difficult it is to duplicate the results of experiments. This introduces a larger measure of judgement and opinion into psychiatry (which has many variables, of uncertain dependence) than is present in the hard sciences, or even softer sciences such as geology.

    Psychiatry, if my foregoing remarks are valid, is therfore scientific, but its weaknesses lead to some of its conclusions being unscientific.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    As John described, the study of behavior is difficult because it is complex and involves many factors. Because of this, it is often not studied as rigorously as it should be. However, when strong scientific methodology is applied, psychiatry is capable of being completely on par with any hard science.

    The problem is not the field but the training that practitioners in the field receive and the standards to which they are held. Across behavioral sciences this has historically been inferior to the training and standards in hard sciences, and I think this is largely why such studies often get a bad rap. There is a lot of bad behavioral science out there. But there is good science out there too.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Merlin, I recommend that you read up on the anti-psychiatry movement before attacking psychiatry.
    There are areas which are somewhat contentious but psychiatry is a methodical and scientific discipline.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    The "science of treating mental disorders" is indeed a science.

    If it is not then it's definition should be changed.

    Bear in mind though, there was a day when the best practicioners of medicine where the ones who "did the least harm." It was from this mess that real medicine sprouted, and psychiatry is like this. It is relatively new, and since it is such a personal subject, it forces people who practice it to change, those unwilling to change to suit what they learn are not true practitioners of their work. Just as a medical doctor who is unhealthy. They do not practice what they preach, and the subjective nature of psychiatrists is multiplied. It is also no wonder that a lot of psychiatrists have mental problems, which may hinder it's progress.

    It is nonetheless useful.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Ok, so from what I see thus far, are we agreeing that psychiatry has potential to be a 'real' or 'hard' science yet is not there yet?

    I know one Prof. of Psychiatry that has outright admitted to myself that it is a bit of an art- Giving this and that medicine, testing etc.

    John- You said some of the conclusions of psychiatry are unscientific- To which ones do you refer?

    I also read up a bit on the 'anti-psychiatry' movement. There seems to be some good points they are raising though- Such as there been no diagnostical test to prove any biological 'disease'.
    What do you all say to that one? Is there any such test?

    Indeed this topic is a sensitive one but all the more why it should be discussed. In my researching I found there to be many class action law suits and legal battles going on with the pharma companies, many of which have been dishing out settlement money of millions of dollars and more.
    Do a google search..
    Does this sound like what would be happening if ones drugs were legitimate and did in fact do good to people?

    Both sides do have good points yet both seem flawed- The psychiatry and the 'anti-psychiatry'. So where does that leave the millions of people out there who suffer from some kind of mental/emotional disturbance? How do they get help OR how do they simply help themselves?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    John- You said some of the conclusions of psychiatry are unscientific- To which ones do you refer?
    I had no specific ones in mind. My statement was based upon two things. Firstly the uncertain character and relationship of the many variables involved makes some poor science a certainty. Secondly, I am aware of having read over the years of problems with many of the practices within psychiatry. Electric shock therapy and frontal lobotomies spring to mind. The probable misapplication of drugs that you have cited likley provides a wide range of examples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Is PSYCHIATRY a legitimate science ?
    Although I have pursued interests on the fringes of such study, psychiatry, which has a basis in psychological study, is indeed a legitimate science. One source defines science as, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." In psychiatry, science seeks to explain and treat phenomena of the mind and, by reduction, phenomena arising from brain function. To suggest that psychiatry is not science is to suggest that medicine, pharmacology, and neurophysiology isn't science as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Many thanks to you all for the replies.

    Drm -
    "...experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"
    - With psychiatry I have yet to be convinced the above is indeed happening in a legitimate way.

    My opinion may change when and if real evidence is presented, until such time I see there is many problems with psychiatry.

    This does not mean the 'anti-psychiatry' movement is correct in all its statements by any means. The anti-psych movement has many flaws also.

    So what are the alternatives?

    AND

    Can anyone answer the anti-psych movements question- Where is the proof of any 'biological disease' ?
    Where is the pyschiatric diagnostical test that proves biological illness ?


    I've noticed that this point is been side-stepped...

    Sand foundations? Or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Many thanks to you all for the replies.

    Drm -
    "...experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"
    - With psychiatry I have yet to be convinced the above is indeed happening in a legitimate way.

    My opinion may change when and if real evidence is presented, until such time I see there is many problems with psychiatry.
    A few examples:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1992-06242-001
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k498q178557v0758/
    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...Jacobson96.pdf


    This does not mean the 'anti-psychiatry' movement is correct in all its statements by any means. The anti-psych movement has many flaws also.

    So what are the alternatives?

    AND

    Can anyone answer the anti-psych movements question- Where is the proof of any 'biological disease' ?
    Where is the pyschiatric diagnostical test that proves biological illness ?


    I've noticed that this point is been side-stepped...

    Sand foundations? Or not?
    Psychiatrists don't use the term "biological disease" AFAIK, so I'm not sure why proving such a thing is necessary. "Disorders" are diagnosed behaviorally (e.g. description by the patient) and treatment outcomes are assessed in a similar manner. There are biological correlates, but they are not sufficient or necessary for diagnosis.
    Here's an example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

    Standardized criteria

    The most widely used standardized criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia come from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version DSM-IV-TR, and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the ICD-10. The latter criteria are typically used in European countries while the DSM criteria are used in the United States and the rest of the world, as well as prevailing in research studies. The ICD-10 criteria put more emphasis on Schneiderian first rank symptoms although, in practice, agreement between the two systems is high.[18]

    According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met.[4]

    1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
    * Delusions
    * Hallucinations
    * Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
    * Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
    * Negative symptoms—affective flattening (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)

    If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.

    2. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
    3. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

    Schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed if symptoms of mood disorder or pervasive developmental disorder are present, or the symptoms are the direct result of a general medical condition or a substance, such as abuse of a drug or medication.
    Here's your biology:
    Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by cornsail
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Many thanks to you all for the replies.

    Drm -
    "...experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"
    - With psychiatry I have yet to be convinced the above is indeed happening in a legitimate way.

    My opinion may change when and if real evidence is presented, until such time I see there is many problems with psychiatry.
    A few examples:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1992-06242-001
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k498q178557v0758/
    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...Jacobson96.pdf

    I still cannot see convincing evidence here. The fact that the 'patients' are tested in the above cases without clearly naming any drugs/meds indicates to me that this is more leaning towards the area of psychOLOGY not pyshciatry- Which is linked yes but not the same thing.

    Did they use drugs on the 'patients' in the above cases or not?


    This does not mean the 'anti-psychiatry' movement is correct in all its statements by any means. The anti-psych movement has many flaws also.

    So what are the alternatives?

    AND

    Can anyone answer the anti-psych movements question- Where is the proof of any 'biological disease' ?
    Where is the pyschiatric diagnostical test that proves biological illness ?


    I've noticed that this point is been side-stepped...

    Sand foundations? Or not?
    Psychiatrists don't use the term "biological disease" AFAIK, so I'm not sure why proving such a thing is necessary. "Disorders" are diagnosed behaviorally (e.g. description by the patient) and treatment outcomes are assessed in a similar manner. There are biological correlates, but they are not sufficient or necessary for diagnosis.
    Here's an example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

    Well they may aswell be calling it that. I know of and have witnessed many times psychiatrists telling patients they have "a problem" "a disorder" "its a DISEASE like diabetes" etc They say these things- No doubt.

    So to treat something biologically you need no proof of a biological problem? How does that work?
    The biological correlates are not sufficient? What the deal here?



    Standardized criteria

    The most widely used standardized criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia come from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version DSM-IV-TR, and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the ICD-10. The latter criteria are typically used in European countries while the DSM criteria are used in the United States and the rest of the world, as well as prevailing in research studies. The ICD-10 criteria put more emphasis on Schneiderian first rank symptoms although, in practice, agreement between the two systems is high.[18]

    According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met.[4]

    1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
    * Delusions
    * Hallucinations
    * Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
    * Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
    * Negative symptoms—affective flattening (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)

    If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.

    2. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
    3. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

    Schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed if symptoms of mood disorder or pervasive developmental disorder are present, or the symptoms are the direct result of a general medical condition or a substance, such as abuse of a drug or medication.
    Really? I have seen it done

    Here's your biology:
    Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity.


    Come on- Thats all there is? HIGHLY INSUFFICENT
    Do the psychiatrists know what a "normal" level of dopamine is????

    This all looks highly speculative to me at present.

    Is there vested interests rigging the mental health system I wonder?

    So they supress a chemical in the brain(which they admit is THE NEW FINAL FRONTIER) which they claim is causing some sort of disorder- Yet they cannot prove whether or not it really is???

    This does NOT sound scientific so far...

    What else is the drug supressing I wonder? Besides dopamine...?

    And why treat something like a mental disorder with a drug in the first place?
    Geez- Sounds like the quick-fix mentality to me. "here pop a pill and kiss your troubles goodbye"...
    Maybe those Pharma companies are making a killing and thats a key reason?

    Do NOT mis-understand me here. Anit-Psych movement obviously is NOT the answer....
    But apparently- Either is psychiatry...


    Great potential here for someone with real knowledge of how to actually heal dont you think...?

    Especailly considering that psychiatrist claim to have NEVER cured a 'patient'.

    What going on here....?
    I smell something fishy......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I can't find my book on nutrition. It is out dated, but it has lists for every nutrient of studies done on their effects. Many nutrients effect mental disorders, a lack of them seems to be a contributing factor to their cause, and medicinal use seems to be a contributing factor in lessening the symptoms or curing the problem.

    My basic understanding of it all is that our hormones determine our mood which largely determines our behavior. To say there is no physical cause to our actions is a mistake. Maybe we don't know what those physical causes are in some cases, but that is not a reason to discredit when we discover a correlation.

    My concern, is who determines what is ideal/healthy/normal. Obviously those in charge of the specific field or culture, but who is analyzing them? There are different concepts to determine this, some people prefer to define one ideal human, some divide humans into various archetypes or "constitutions."

    Ultimately "normal behavior" is decided by the leaders of any culture. Hyper aggressive disorder for example might suit the evangelist quite well and also might suit the orator, the lawyer, the politician, etc. Depression and schizophrenia seems to suit artists quite well. Anxiety might be useful to some degree in the wild, where it keeps you alert when you would otherwise be complacent.

    I think that monks eat little and live slowly because it keeps hormonal changes more in check. To contrast, someone who eats a lot and or follows the "live fast die young" sorta philosophy, their hormonal changes are more extreme.

    Pythagoras was known to have a very strict diet, his reasoning was so that his health was always the same and predictable. If your mood is constantly changing, your perspective on life inevitably changes with it, and if you are seeking understanding, truth or objectivity, it would be much easier if not more possible to do so in a relatively hormone "free" sort of life style.

    The problem is not the presence of these "diseases" but the misery they cause to those trying to live a "normal" life despite not being "normal" people. I'm somewhat holistic in my outlook on health, who you are should determine how you live, not the other way around.
    -IMO

    ...it's all about square pegs
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I can't find my book on nutrition. It is out dated, but it has lists for every nutrient of studies done on their effects. Many nutrients effect mental disorders, a lack of them seems to be a contributing factor to their cause, and medicinal use seems to be a contributing factor in lessening the symptoms or curing the problem.

    My basic understanding of it all is that our hormones determine our mood which largely determines our behavior. To say there is no physical cause to our actions is a mistake. Maybe we don't know what those physical causes are in some cases, but that is not a reason to discredit when we discover a correlation.

    My concern, is who determines what is ideal/healthy/normal. Obviously those in charge of the specific field or culture, but who is analyzing them? There are different concepts to determine this, some people prefer to define one ideal human, some divide humans into various archetypes or "constitutions."

    Ultimately "normal behavior" is decided by the leaders of any culture. Hyper aggressive disorder for example might suit the evangelist quite well and also might suit the orator, the lawyer, the politician, etc. Depression and schizophrenia seems to suit artists quite well. Anxiety might be useful to some degree in the wild, where it keeps you alert when you would otherwise be complacent.

    I think that monks eat little and live slowly because it keeps hormonal changes more in check. To contrast, someone who eats a lot and or follows the "live fast die young" sorta philosophy, their hormonal changes are more extreme.

    Pythagoras was known to have a very strict diet, his reasoning was so that his health was always the same and predictable. If your mood is constantly changing, your perspective on life inevitably changes with it, and if you are seeking understanding, truth or objectivity, it would be much easier if not more possible to do so in a relatively hormone "free" sort of life style.

    The problem is not the presence of these "diseases" but the misery they cause to those trying to live a "normal" life despite not being "normal" people. I'm somewhat holistic in my outlook on health, who you are should determine how you live, not the other way around.
    -IMO

    ...it's all about square pegs
    Hey, I likes this man's style. hehe.
    Thanks for the input

    I sense your one of the 'wiser' ones on this forum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Quote Originally Posted by cornsail
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Many thanks to you all for the replies.

    Drm -
    "...experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"
    - With psychiatry I have yet to be convinced the above is indeed happening in a legitimate way.

    My opinion may change when and if real evidence is presented, until such time I see there is many problems with psychiatry.
    A few examples:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1992-06242-001
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k498q178557v0758/
    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...Jacobson96.pdf

    I still cannot see convincing evidence here.



    How is this not evidence of experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena?

    The fact that the 'patients' are tested in the above cases without clearly naming any drugs/meds indicates to me that this is more leaning towards the area of psychOLOGY not pyshciatry- Which is linked yes but not the same thing.
    Did they use drugs on the 'patients' in the above cases or not?


    Behavioral therapy is a form of psychiatry. It doesn't necessarily involve drug prescription.

    If you want an example involving drugs, they really aren't that hard to find:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11105734

    Psychiatrists don't use the term "biological disease" AFAIK, so I'm not sure why proving such a thing is necessary. "Disorders" are diagnosed behaviorally (e.g. description by the patient) and treatment outcomes are assessed in a similar manner. There are biological correlates, but they are not sufficient or necessary for diagnosis.
    Here's an example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

    Well they may aswell be calling it that. I know of and have witnessed many times psychiatrists telling patients they have "a problem" "a disorder" "its a DISEASE like diabetes" etc They say these things- No doubt.

    This has nothing to do with whether or not psychiatry is "unscientific".

    So to treat something biologically you need no proof of a biological problem? How does that work?
    The biological correlates are not sufficient? What the deal here?
    A)Empirical science generally doesn't talk about "proving" things, but "supporting with evidence". Evidence doesn't have to be "biological".
    B) The purpose of psychiatry is to improve the mental health of patients. "Proof" of a "biological problem" is not necessary.

    Here's your biology:
    Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity.
    [/quote]

    Come on- Thats all there is?
    Obviously not.

    HIGHLY INSUFFICENT
    In what respect?

    Do the psychiatrists know what a "normal" level of dopamine is????
    Obviously.

    So they supress a chemical in the brain(which they admit is THE NEW FINAL FRONTIER) which they claim is causing some sort of disorder- Yet they cannot prove whether or not it really is???
    Scientists don't "prove", they "provide evidence for".There is strong evidence indicating that excess dopamine in certain regions of the brain is correlative with the presence of the schizophrenia symptoms, and there is strong evidence that certain dopamine-suppressing drugs [i]cause[i/] a reduction in such symptoms.

    This does NOT sound scientific so far...
    That is probably because you misunderstand the term "scientific":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.
    This is consistent with all the studies I've linked you to.

    What else is the drug supressing I wonder? Besides dopamine...?

    And why treat something like a mental disorder with a drug in the first place?
    Geez- Sounds like the quick-fix mentality to me. "here pop a pill and kiss your troubles goodbye"...
    Maybe those Pharma companies are making a killing and thats a key reason?
    These things may or may not be true, but they have nothing to do with whether psychiatry is "unscientific".

    Great potential here for someone with real knowledge of how to actually heal dont you think...?
    I suppose you advocate Scientology as an alternative? You can believe whatever you want, but I'm not going to get into a religious debate.

    Especailly considering that psychiatrist claim to have NEVER cured a 'patient'.
    Psychiatrists do not claim this.

    What going on here....?
    I smell something fishy......
    Indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Some psychiatry is science based. Some not.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    What's the purpose of posting if you're just going to hedge?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by SPurious Monkey
    Some psychiatry is science based. Some not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    What's the purpose of posting if you're just going to hedge?
    Where is the hedging in Monkey's post? He has made a very definite statment. He did not say that psychiatry might be scientific, or it might not. That would be hedging. He states clearly that in the very large field of psychiatry some of it is good science and som of it isn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    That's just a different way of saying "It may or may not be". It's a hedge. Not necessarily a bad one, but the same statement applies to everything. Due to imperfection everything will have some good and some bad. He really makes no stance whatsoever, other than the neutral (hedge) one.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    That's just a different way of saying "It may or may not be".
    No, it's not the same at all.

    He really makes no stance whatsoever, other than the neutral (hedge) one.
    And? It's a valid critique of trying to answer the question in black/white terms or even asking the question in the first place. Even if not that it still provides what he believes is the best answer to the question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I am totally not going to argue semantics further. Fine. You win.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Clearly the field of psychiatry is suffering from a lack of scientific tradition for many of its participants, for a large part of its history, and for many of its treatments and diagnoses.

    This is valid for every medical field. Some are worse than others.

    I'm definitely not stating that it may or may not be. Some parts of the field are scientific. Others are not.

    We would have to analyze specific parts to come to a judgment on these. Any verdict on one part would not guarantee the same verdict on a different aspect of the discipline.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I am totally not going to argue semantics further. Fine. You win.
    I hope you are not implying that semantics is somehow unimportant. It is aximomatic to any civilised discussion that the semantics must be clarified before any progress can be made. That being the case I understand your post to be an admission that you were mistaken. Thank you.

    Edited to correct two typographical errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I do not deny that semantics are important, I simply throw my hands up when it's apparent a position is unassailable. I do not admit to being mistaken, I simply surrender.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I simply throw my hands up when it's apparent a position is unassailable.
    maybe it means that the position is actually correct.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Yes, because intelligent people are known for their zealotry.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I simply throw my hands up when it's apparent a position is unassailable.
    maybe it means that the position is actually correct.
    Yeah that sounds about right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Yes, because intelligent people are known for their zealotry.
    Intellegent people are known for their willingness to REASON with people. Zealots are known for stating their unfounded opinons as if they were facts and respond to challenges with an unwillingness to talk about it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    My concern, is who determines what is ideal/healthy/normal. Obviously those in charge of the specific field or culture, but who is analyzing them? There are different concepts to determine this, some people prefer to define one ideal human, some divide humans into various archetypes or "constitutions."
    When they say normal levels of dopamine they are not making a value judgment. Rather they are using it in the statistical sense, which is the average range found in a sufficiently large sample population to estimate the average range in the entire population.

    Also, the fact that drugs that target dopamine improve symptoms seems to suggest that elevated levels of dopamine cause schizophrenia. What causes the elevated dopamine levels is another question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Yes, because intelligent people are known for their zealotry.
    Intellegent people are known for their willingness to REASON with people. Zealots are known for stating their unfounded opinons as if they were facts and respond to challenges with an unwillingness to talk about it.
    This is true, but my statement does not request for a definition of the two. My point is that, regardless of how much I argue what it appeared to be, as long as there are more people arguing against me there's no point. That and the original poster disagrees with my interpretation. This means one of two things:

    A) I am wrong
    B) Nobody notices the subtle flaw

    Of course, I am much more neurotic about grammar and writing than most people, so I expect that. Really, I'd rather not persist in such an argument. I remember the last time I did so, with the use of "waffle" as a noun. Rolling my eyes.

    Also, on the topic of whether or not it's scientific, I agree with the statement some is, some isn't. Only I will actually add substance, and say that it's because psychiatry (and psychology) itself doesn't have strict methodologies for determining diagnostic criteria. I mean, hell, they're not even trained in logic, which is key for analyzing!
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I agree with those techniques, my problem is purely with behavior.

    I have no scientific evidence and don't claim a scientific stance on the subject, but I claim a "yet to be discovered" stance

    psychosis seems to be a sign that something other than the "patient" is(or was) out of sync in the persons life. Something made the person crazy, and maybe we should evaluate those influential people in the person life to see if the "disease" is not contagious at best, or at worst an intentionally spread disease.

    If it is intentionally spread, maybe people are not aware of the effects of their actions, but I think people are aware that they are treating someone wrong, and in treating someone a curtain way you influence their behavior. To say that an individual should be able to make up one's own mind is idealism at best, those who seem more capable of doing so probably, in my opinion, have multiple outlets for expression and/or multiple sources of impressions, and so one out of sync aspect has less influence than if that aspect of their life was the only major one. For example a psychotic family in a rural area where there are less influences, vs psychotic individuals of a family in an urban area where there are more influences.

    *I have no evidence for this, it is all my opinion. I think it is safe to assume that psychotic individuals stick together more, sensing/observing their similarities consciously or otherwise. This may help in preserving/spreading psychosis, but I am curious as to the difference of interactions between

    psychotic and psychotic
    non-psychotic and psychotic
    non-psychotic and psychotic

    I would assume the two psychotic individuals could relate better than two non psychotic individuals, and both groups could relate better than a non-psychotic with a psychotic.

    I wonder if there is not some good to psychosis if it was embraced instead of considered a disease, and if opinions are not the only thing causing the suffering.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Of course, I am much more neurotic about grammar and writing than most people, so I expect that. Really, I'd rather not persist in such an argument. I remember the last time I did so, with the use of "waffle" as a noun. Rolling my eyes.
    When you have had your ass kicked, please let it stay kicked. Waffle, in the UK, where we speak English, can be both a noun and a verb. Now, altogether:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I am totally not going to argue semantics further. Fine. You win.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I'm glad to see the UK likes being wrong. Though, really, it's NOT okay in the UK. The misuse is just so popular dictionaries have included it as informal (see: Incorrect, slang, improper).

    Furthermore, by stating "my country agrees with me" you make a fallacy by appealing to the NUMBER of those that supposedly agree. Most people are Christian, therefore Christians are right? I don't think you'd agree with that.

    PROTIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Correctness in language is determined by usage. Waffle is commonly used as a noun and as a verb in the UK. English is the language of the UK. Deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    PROTIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    To be less sardonic, you ARE right. Language is determined by use. However, that doesn't make this latest development any less wrong.

    Waffle (verb) is completely different from waffle (noun). Waffle (noun) has never meant two things ever, and has a completely different etymology. The noun form of a verb is its gerund, and the gerund of waffle (verb) is waffling. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Seriously?! Yet another thread bogged down by irrelevant arguments. Why don't people use the PM button for this crap? I'm actually interested in the discussion, but not so much the outcome of this argument. I think I can speak for most people.

    Moderators please do something about this
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Seriously?! Yet another thread bogged down by irrelevant arguments.
    You also believe semantics to be irrelevant then? Fair enough. I'm gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "You also believe semantics to be irrelevant then? Fair enough. I'm gone."

    No, to the contrary, I am on your side in the argument, but it is not a popularity contest so I choose to stay out of it. I am in this thread to discuss the topic, if someone cares more about expressing thyself than being understood, ignore them, they will learn on their own.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    First off to Cornsal I will say I AM NOT LINKED TO SCIENTOLOGY or even a religion- So dont try and discredit me with that crap.
    Yet another unfounded statement.

    From what I've seen people who may take a drug to 'fix' something due to been told they should OR must then may go on to feel better but why is all the credit given to the drug?
    What about the fact that those people getting better may be spending more time with loved ones and receiving support etc. etc which could be the key reason they get 'better'.... Im afraid this isn't pointed out enough sadly...

    Theres major problems with the research. There is so many other factors not taken into account...
    For example- When a patient or client as they now like to call it starts to feel anxiety attacks and is hospitalised and given medication they do eventually start to feel a little better alot of the time. Yet far too much of the credit is given to a drug and the company who manufactures that drug.
    Where is the evidence the drug even did anything at all? How strong is that evidence?

    Look where all the money goes... Its clear for everyone to see evidence and 'clinical trials' etc are easily manipulated by those with the research dollars pulling the strings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Also Cornsail

    You have taken somewhat of a stance here clearly. Your original arguement is based on behavioural studies. Yet how much of that is relevant to pyschiatry?

    The psychiatrists I know of do not mention therapies involving behaviour much at all.

    On the flip side they have almost an obsession with dispencing drugs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    First off to Cornsal I will say I AM NOT LINKED TO SCIENTOLOGY or even a religion- So dont try and discredit me with that crap.
    Yet another unfounded statement.
    Hah ha. My apologies. But what do you mean "ANOTHER" unfounded statement? Besides, this presumptuous remark, I haven't made any. :P

    From what I've seen people who may take a drug to 'fix' something due to been told they should OR must then may go on to feel better but why is all the credit given to the drug?
    What about the fact that those people getting better may be spending more time with loved ones and receiving support etc. etc which could be the key reason they get 'better'.... Im afraid this isn't pointed out enough sadly...
    Because anyone familiar with experimental methodology knows that confounds and regression to the mean effects are controlled for by random assignment and placebo groups.
    Also “all the credit” is not necessarily given to the drug. It’s well known that behavioral counseling or therapy combined with medication is more effective than just medication for many conditions. And it’s well known social support has a beneficial effect on depression.

    Theres major problems with the research. There is so many other factors not taken into account...
    For example- When a patient or client as they now like to call it starts to feel anxiety attacks and is hospitalised and given medication they do eventually start to feel a little better alot of the time. Yet far too much of the credit is given to a drug and the company who manufactures that drug.
    Where is the evidence the drug even did anything at all? How strong is that evidence?
    Do you seriously not know what a placebo control group is? Why criticize what you know nothing about?
    Look where all the money goes... Its clear for everyone to see evidence and 'clinical trials' etc are easily manipulated by those with the research dollars pulling the strings
    Probably true. There are many bad studies in every science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Also Cornsail

    You have taken somewhat of a stance here clearly. Your original arguement is based on behavioural studies. Yet how much of that is relevant to pyschiatry?

    The psychiatrists I know of do not mention therapies involving behaviour much at all.

    On the flip side they have almost an obsession with dispencing drugs.
    I linked you to a drug study already. Both behavioral therapy techniques and medications have been studied in a similar (scientific) matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    I should stress I agree with spuriousmonkey that “Some psychiatry is science based. Some not.” Obviously I disagree general statements like “psychiatry is unscientific” or “psychiatry is not legitimate science” OTOH.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    My concern, is who determines what is ideal/healthy/normal. Obviously those in charge of the specific field or culture, but who is analyzing them?
    There are different concepts to determine this, some people prefer to define one ideal human, some divide humans into various archetypes or "constitutions."
    Ultimately "normal behavior" is decided by the leaders of any culture.
    What do you mean by “the leaders”? Social norms aren’t decided by a specific set of people, they can be affected by any part of the culture. Although it is true that the social norms of the upper and middle class will be valued higher in a sense than the social norms of poorer subcultures.
    Hyper aggressive disorder for example might suit the evangelist quite well and also might suit the orator, the lawyer, the politician, etc. Depression and schizophrenia seems to suit artists quite well. Anxiety might be useful to some degree in the wild, where it keeps you alert when you would otherwise be complacent.
    By definition (diagnostically speaking) most disorders must have a significant negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. If it suits them well then it is not considered a disorder. You are correct that one person’s “disorder” could be another person’s asset.
    I think that monks eat little and live slowly because it keeps hormonal changes more in check. To contrast, someone who eats a lot and or follows the "live fast die young" sorta philosophy, their hormonal changes are more extreme.
    Pythagoras was known to have a very strict diet, his reasoning was so that his health was always the same and predictable. If your mood is constantly changing, your perspective on life inevitably changes with it, and if you are seeking understanding, truth or objectivity, it would be much easier if not more possible to do so in a relatively hormone "free" sort of life style.
    These ideas could certainly be studied.
    The problem is not the presence of these "diseases" but the misery they cause to those trying to live a "normal" life despite not being "normal" people. I'm somewhat holistic in my outlook on health, who you are should determine how you live, not the other way around.
    -IMO
    ...it's all about square pegs
    You seriously underestimate the damage things like schizophrenia or agoraphobia can do to people’s lives. Who are we to tell them they should just be themselves if they want treatment? Schizophrenia medication has terrible side-effects, but most still take it, because their quality of life is so poor without it. Agoraphobics can barely leave their house. Should they stop trying to be normal and live in the same little space indefinitely even if it makes them miserable? I do agree that not all of us are really made for a modern capitalist lifestyle and some people are better off trying to change their life rather than medicate themselves. I’ve known many people who’ve done this.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    psychosis seems to be a sign that something other than the "patient" is(or was) out of sync in the persons life. Something made the person crazy, and maybe we should evaluate those influential people in the person life to see if the "disease" is not contagious at best, or at worst an intentionally spread disease.

    If it is intentionally spread, maybe people are not aware of the effects of their actions, but I think people are aware that they are treating someone wrong, and in treating someone a curtain way you influence their behavior. To say that an individual should be able to make up one's own mind is idealism at best, those who seem more capable of doing so probably, in my opinion, have multiple outlets for expression and/or multiple sources of impressions, and so one out of sync aspect has less influence than if that aspect of their life was the only major one. For example a psychotic family in a rural area where there are less influences, vs psychotic individuals of a family in an urban area where there are more influences.
    Wow you lost me there. To many ideas in too short a space.

    *I have no evidence for this, it is all my opinion. I think it is safe to assume that psychotic individuals stick together more, sensing/observing their similarities consciously or otherwise. This may help in preserving/spreading psychosis, but I am curious as to the difference of interactions between

    psychotic and psychotic
    non-psychotic and psychotic
    non-psychotic and psychotic

    I would assume the two psychotic individuals could relate better than two non psychotic individuals, and both groups could relate better than a non-psychotic with a psychotic.
    Maybe, and this could be something to study. Actually it would surprise me if it hasn’t been done already. I've read that psychotics definitely amplify each others’ “abnormal behavior” by being around one another a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Mod note:

    Ok. I think the little semantics debate has run its course, so no further comments on it please. Spurious has made clear what his intentions were with his post. Let's just move on already. Thanks.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Ok....

    Can anyone please answer the following:

    Is there a biological test that can prove the existence of a mental illness?
    Please by all means show relevant data, journals etc.

    This seems to be one of the key points made by those in the anti-psych front *and* those that are in the field, yet disagree with current methods...

    If there is NOT indeed any test- Why is it told that way to the public?
    '... sorry Bob.. You have a biological problem in your head... we have to treat it with XYZ medicaiton..'

    Many claim there is NO way of telling what the 'norm' would be for a 'healthy' individual...
    Many also claim the mental-health authorities do NOT even state what it is to be healthy- Is this true?

    In regard to a previous post going back...
    2 Psychiatrists I know of have told their patients that the testing done on a certain anti-psychotic drug lasted only 6months...
    Yet many who go on to take these drugs do so for years... Does this not present problems?

    Also, the idea that the drugs merely mask symptoms, many claim truthful...
    The 'withdrawal' factor aswell... addiction etc.

    There seems problems with this particular field.

    Just putting ideas out there for discussion, 'typing out loud' so-to-speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I'm watching this intro to psyche course.

    file:///E:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Nadoo/Desktop/psyc110/Introduction-to-Psychology/content/sessions.html

    check out lectures 18 and 19 for a better understanding of mental disorders
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Ok....

    Can anyone please answer the following:

    Is there a biological test that can prove the existence of a mental illness?
    Please by all means show relevant data, journals etc.
    Sigh.

    I already gave you the dopamine example (biological evidence of a brain abnormality linked to certain mental/behavioral abnormalities), already explained why you are misunderstanding the concepts of "scientific", "proof" and their relationship and already linked you to several studies.

    Not that this is in any way necessary for psychiatric research to be "scientific", but please explain what it would mean to "prove the existence of a mental illness"? By your logic and standards of proof, any doctor handing out pain relievers is a quack, because we can't prove the existence of pain.

    This seems to be one of the key points made by those in the anti-psych front *and* those that are in the field, yet disagree with current methods...
    Link?

    Many claim there is NO way of telling what the 'norm' would be for a 'healthy' individual...
    Link?

    Many also claim the mental-health authorities do NOT even state what it is to be healthy- Is this true?
    Link? Who are "the mental-health authorities"?

    In regard to a previous post going back...
    2 Psychiatrists I know of have told their patients that the testing done on a certain anti-psychotic drug lasted only 6months...
    Yet many who go on to take these drugs do so for years... Does this not present problems?
    Certainly.

    Also, the idea that the drugs merely mask symptoms, many claim truthful...
    The 'withdrawal' factor aswell... addiction etc.
    The problems you point out are certainly true for a lot of medications, but this seems to be off topic. The topic was "is psychiatry scientific?". More specifically you posed the idea that psychiatry is NOT scientific. You're now, as you have done a couple times before, shifting into a general attack on psychiatry. To the question "are there problems with the way psychiatry is practiced?" or "does the current state of psychiatry have significant limitations" the answers would obviously be yes.

    You've shown several times in the thread a lack of understanding of the absolute basics of behavioral research and even that of the scientific method in general, yet your tone and language throughout the thread displays a naive degree of confidence on the subject. The topic of what you're talking about also seems to shift around. I suggest you sort out exactly what it is you want to know and then do a little basic research of your own before continuing to post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I think I'm Jesus. Your normal every day Jesus.

    I want to kill myself. You know, most normal people want to kill themselves.

    Aliens are watching me

    I can't control my eating patterns

    ...

    You don't first notice the biological effects of these things. But when you have 1000 cases of various irational self distructive impulses and dillusions that share a biological trait, and when you alter the common biological trait and these psychological effects change, this is the stuff science is made on.

    Science is not ONE GROUP who decides what is good and what is bad. Constantly scientists are studing different groups who share similar psychological problems, testing alternative treatments and studying the effects of all of this.

    I can't cite any sources, but if you watch the lectures I suggested in my prior post you will have a much better understanding of it all.

    Bipolar Disorder, for example is found in industrialized countries as well as non industrialized countries, equally. The major difference is that in Non-Ind. countries there is a better recovery rate. There are different theories as to why, but they will need to be tested. In the mean time I think we should set up 3rd world psyche wards... :P
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Ok..

    I admit I could have been more specific.

    Your right cornsail.. I could have asked clearer questions.

    To the question "are there problems with the way psychiatry is practiced?" or "does the current state of psychiatry have significant limitations" the answers would obviously be yes.
    I'll be honest with you- These questions and other similar to these are what I wish to discuss.

    I wasnt aware that I must stick so closely to the very first statement.
    I dont frequent discussion forums as much as others, in fact I fairly new to this..
    So I'm sorry if this has caused problems.

    My intention was to begin a discussion. simple.

    Ok, when I get time I will dig up the links you asked for...
    I thought it would already be common knowledge for most of you already.

    The "mental-health authorities" would be those that are in charge of the system/ the field of research. This is pretty straight forward.

    I dont intent to flat-out claim there is nothing good about the mental-health field. I havent done this and I will not. There is just many problems with it that are self-evident and that is what should be discussed here in my opinion.

    So yes cornsail I will be more specific from now on... Apologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Eh, sorry for being a dick. It wasn't really warranted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    I'll be honest with you- These questions and other similar to these are what I wish to discuss.

    I wasnt aware that I must stick so closely to the very first statement.
    I dont frequent discussion forums as much as others, in fact I fairly new to this..
    So I'm sorry if this has caused problems.
    Well, if you read the original post in the thread it lays out the topic question as one of methodology and scientific validity of methods used. I'm not saying you can't bring up anything else, it was just the fact that you were randomly mixing in these arguments into debate regarding the original question.

    The "mental-health authorities" would be those that are in charge of the system/ the field of research. This is pretty straight forward.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote:

    The "mental-health authorities" would be those that are in charge of the system/ the field of research. This is pretty straight forward.

    Huh?
    Sorry again for been a little unclear here.
    The professionals in this field of research, those in charge of making decisions regarding mental health issues, research etc. etc.

    I guess the word used in the original post "UNscientific" could be taken the wrong way..

    As we have established- There indeed is a science to the madness
    Yet- I suppose the question is how effective is that science (psychiatry) in treating the problem of mental distress/illness.

    No doubt there is credible research been conducted.

    I find it concerning though that there is so much division involved in the field of treating mental illness.

    One of the links you requested earlier is:
    http://www.psychtruth.org/
    ---Yet I'm having trouble with it loading, perhaps you will have better luck.

    This is what I found on another site:

    International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Inc.
    Dominick Riccio, Ph.D.
    http://www.icspp.org

    The James Nayler Foundation
    Robert Johnson, MD.
    http://truthtrustconsent.com

    The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights
    Jim Gottstein, J.D.
    http://psychrights.org

    Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
    Abram Hoffer, MD.
    http://www.orthomed.org

    SelfGrowth.com
    David Riklan
    http://www.selfgrowth.com

    MESICS Fitness
    Jim Manganiello, Ed.D.
    http://www.mesicsfitness.com

    Natural Bodybuilding & Fitness Magazines
    Steve Downs, Editor-in-Chief
    http://www.exercisegroup.com/

    Psych Truth.Org
    Laurence Simon Ph.D.
    http://www.psychtruth.org

    Dr. Michael Siebert
    http://www.drmichaelsiebert.com

    KPNC Radio
    Dr.Greg Tefft
    http://www.kpncradio.com

    “It’s time for all us to take more responsibility for our own health and to demand that our healthcare providers be more accountable to ensure that we are informed enough to make responsible choices,” said Dr. Laurence Simon, psychologist and vice chairman of the campaign. “Take two of these pills and call me in the morning is no longer acceptable,” said Simon.

    For more information call 212-861-7400 or email us at info@psychtruth.org

    http://community.freespeech.org/node/4252
    ================================================== ==

    So yes, it seems many are 'kicking-up-a-stink' so to speak about psychiatry and they dont all fall into the 'anti-psych' or 'scientology' camps.

    As you can see from the quote just above by Dr. Simon. This does sum up much of the mentality going on in psychiatry. "take 2 pills and call me in the morn."

    Yes, given there is much research in the area of behavioural studies, yet it isnt been put to much use from what I've been seeing.
    Very heavy reliance is been given to the medication/drugs.

    I think this should be of concern to all those in the mental health arena.

    The fact that M.D.s and PH.D.s are turning against their own profession as it currently exists is alarming. Even if they are a minority- Its says something.

    In my own humble opinion what many of these doctors are claiming is just common sense. Its self-evident. If someone is distressed- Its most likely due to personal problems- problems at home with family or at work or school etc.
    Problems with self-esteem or bullying...

    Yet these people are sent into a doctors room and medicated with sedatives- which mask the symptoms- Instead of treating the cause- A problem with self-esteem or a disagreement with ones spouse etc.

    The aim of this post is to discuss these issues. The first statement merely intended to lead in this direction.

    Apologies for any misunderstanding friends
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: Psychiatry- Unscientific ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Here I put forth an open question to you all-

    Is PSYCHIATRY a legitimate science ?

    If so, why?

    If no, Why not?

    I understand this may seem a silly question to some but after much research into this field I have found many agree it is a real science and just as many think it is not.

    Those that state 'of course it is!' -Please, back up your claim. Where is the scientific method, proof and findings? I hear those in the field claim 'Its a biological disease' yet, where is the evidence this is true? links to research papers/journals etc. ?

    Could it be possible there is something going on here? Another cause perhaps?

    Then those of you who disagree and say that psychiatry is NOT true science and therefore unscientific- Please, do the same. Present proof and back up your claims.
    Many will claim psychiatry is merely for social control. If you think this to be the case where can you show that this particular science is 'fake' ?

    I wish those interested to have an open discussion on the topic here..
    Psychology= speculation (the musings of Freud, Jung, Maslow, etc...although this is changing)

    Psychiatry= prescription mongering (the last two I've seen wrote prescriptions for me in order to save time after speaking with me for 5 minutes or less...one said, "Are you still feeling down? Ok, take 20 more milligrams of Effexor XR" I saw him twice in 6 months...)

    Neuropsychiatry= less speculation; a synthesis between mind/body behavior
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Psychology= speculation
    Not necessarily. Psychology is a wide field which includes wholly scientific and experiment based investigation of behaviour. Is this what you meant with "although this is changing"?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Psychiatry is a medical specialty devoted to the treatment, study and prevention of mental disorders. The term was first coined by the German physician Johann Christian Reil in 1808.

    Psychiatric assessment typically involves a mental status examination, the taking of a case history. Psychological tests may also be conducted. Physical examinations may be carried out and on occasion neuroimaging or other neurophysiological studies are performed. Mental disorders are diagnosed based on criteria listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), published by the World Health Organization.

    Psychiatric treatment employs a variety of therapeutic modalities including medications, psychotherapy, and a wide variety of other treatments such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. Depending upon the disorder being treated, the severity of the symptoms, and level of impaired functioning, treatment may be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Research and the clinical application of psychiatry are conducted on an interdisciplinary basis involving various sub-specialties and theoretical approaches.
    -Wikipedia.

    It sounds Psyciatry has enough legitimacy to me. Is there any other volunteer who wants to deal with human mind, mental disorders? Theoretical Physicists? No.. So this is currently humanity's best.

    If some muppets are using this knowledge in order to exploit fellow human beings, that's their shame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    It sounds as if Psychiatry has enough legitimacy to me. Is there any other volunteer who wants to deal with human mind, mental disorders? Theoretical Physicists? No.. So this is currently humanity's best.

    If some muppets are using this knowledge in order to exploit fellow human beings, that's their shame.
    Well said.

    Welcome to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    athens, oh
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Quote:

    The "mental-health authorities" would be those that are in charge of the system/ the field of research. This is pretty straight forward.

    Huh?
    Sorry again for been a little unclear here.
    The professionals in this field of research, those in charge of making decisions regarding mental health issues, research etc. etc.
    Not that I think it's important; individuals should decide what it means for them to be healthy, not "mental health authorities".

    But no researcher has ever made claims about what it means to be mentally healthy? I find that extremely implausible.

    As for "those in charge of making decisions regarding mental health issues" what does that even mean? Can you be more specific?

    One of the links you requested earlier is:
    http://www.psychtruth.org/
    ---Yet I'm having trouble with it loading,
    Ditto

    This is what I found on another site:

    International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Inc.
    Dominick Riccio, Ph.D.
    http://www.icspp.org

    The James Nayler Foundation
    Robert Johnson, MD.
    http://truthtrustconsent.com

    The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights
    Jim Gottstein, J.D.
    http://psychrights.org

    Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
    Abram Hoffer, MD.
    http://www.orthomed.org

    SelfGrowth.com
    David Riklan
    http://www.selfgrowth.com

    MESICS Fitness
    Jim Manganiello, Ed.D.
    http://www.mesicsfitness.com

    Natural Bodybuilding & Fitness Magazines
    Steve Downs, Editor-in-Chief
    http://www.exercisegroup.com/

    Psych Truth.Org
    Laurence Simon Ph.D.
    http://www.psychtruth.org

    Dr. Michael Siebert
    http://www.drmichaelsiebert.com

    KPNC Radio
    Dr.Greg Tefft
    http://www.kpncradio.com
    I looked at a couple of these links, but they didn't appear relevant to the specific claims you were making.

    “It’s time for all us to take more responsibility for our own health and to demand that our healthcare providers be more accountable to ensure that we are informed enough to make responsible choices,” said Dr. Laurence Simon, psychologist and vice chairman of the campaign. “Take two of these pills and call me in the morning is no longer acceptable,” said Simon.
    I tend to agree with that sentiment, but this is unrelated to what you were saying.

    Yes, given there is much research in the area of behavioural studies, yet it isnt been put to much use from what I've been seeing.
    Very heavy reliance is been given to the medication/drugs.
    Behavioral studies are done on medications. Of primary concern should not be whether drugs or therapy/counseling are used more, but whether the most effective techniques are used. It also should be of concern who is funding the studies on medications.

    In my own humble opinion what many of these doctors are claiming is just common sense. Its self-evident. If someone is distressed- Its most likely due to personal problems- problems at home with family or at work or school etc.
    Problems with self-esteem or bullying...

    Yet these people are sent into a doctors room and medicated with sedatives- which mask the symptoms- Instead of treating the cause- A problem with self-esteem or a disagreement with ones spouse etc.
    I agree to an extent, but this is overly simplistic. The "cause" is not always treatable. If I get a headache I have no illusion that it was caused by a lack of aspirin, yet I may find taking something like this to be beneficial.

    Also from my limited experience doctors tend to advocate life changes and counseling in addition to medication. I have no idea what the statistics are on how many do or do not do this. It seems we both just have anecdotes. Do you know of any wide-scale studies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Psychology= speculation
    Not necessarily. Psychology is a wide field which includes wholly scientific and experiment based investigation of behaviour. Is this what you meant with "although this is changing"?
    Yes.

    From wiki:

    (Psychology's) Status as a science

    Criticisms of psychology often come from perceptions that it is a "fuzzy" science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Psychologists and philosophers have addressed the issue in various ways.[53]

    Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not scientific (due to the largely correlational nature of survey research). Other phenomena that psychologists are interested in such as personality, thinking, and emotion cannot be directly measured and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic.

    Misuses of hypothesis-testing occur in psychology, particularly by psychologists without doctoral training in experimental psychology and statistics. Research has documented that many psychologists confuse statistical significance with practical importance. Statistically significant but practically unimportant results are common with large samples.[54] Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the Fisherian p < .05 significance criterion (whereby an observed difference is deemed 'statistically significant' if an effect of that size or larger would occur with 5% (or less) probability in independent replications, assuming the truth of the null-hypothesis of no difference between the treatments).

    Sometimes the debate comes from within psychology, for example between laboratory-oriented researchers and practitioners such as clinicians. In recent years, and particularly in the U.S., there has been increasing debate about the nature of therapeutic effectiveness and about the relevance of empirically examining psychotherapeutic strategies.[55] One argument states that some therapies are based on discredited theories and are unsupported by empirical evidence. The other side points to recent research suggesting that all mainstream therapies are of about equal effectiveness, while also arguing that controlled studies often do not take into consideration real-world conditions.[56]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Think about it..Piget's "Stages of Cognitive Development" are still taught as dogma in Psych 101 ( egocentricity is supposedly diminished during the concrete operational stage..yeah right..recognition of other people's theory of mind doesn't mean that the ego is diminished in any way..oh and by the way, what is this mysterious thing known as an "ego"? It's merely pop culture.. ..not scientific in the least... ) and Freud's psychoanalytic method is used to this day by some backwards psychologists.

    Also, the term "egotistical" is used fraudulently..it doesn't mean "self-centered" at all..

    According to Freud himself:

    “ ...The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces [Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)] ”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 "Science" 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    Science uses observation along with a hypothesis to draw a conclusion, hopefully taking into account any possible variables in reaching a conclusion.
    Psychiatry does not use this methodology. Psychiatry has predefined illnesses based on a set of criteria, subject to observation by the Psychiatrist and observational bias. This is akin to setting forth a conclusion and then arranging the facts to fit it--which is what hospital Psychiatry is excellent at doing. Brain scans are used in research, and some observations about various areas of the brain activity being greater than others and what this may mean moodwise or biologically--but this is not completely set in concrete either. In the interpretations of these, Psychiatry says, "this it the brain of a __________("schizophrenic" or whatever) compared to a "normal" brain(how do we KNOW that the comparison brain is "normal" as defined in the terms analogous to what regular medicine does in terms of label a disease and then seek its treatment based on the name of the disease? A.--we don't nor does Psychiatry attempt to define how we know this any more than we "know" the ostensibly abnormal brain is that of a "schizophrenic"(other than Psychiatry has given the person that label).
    So Psychiatry operates according to how the critics of the Warren Commission(incorrectly) said it operated:It reaches a conclusion(diagnosis) FIRST, THEN it sets about to find the treatment, which THEN seeks to justify itself in the RESULT of that treatment. It doesn't work well in no small measure because such a process IS UNSCIENTIFIC. In practice the process in its entirety is also ILLOGICAL in that it seeks to JUSTIFY its diagnosis(hypothesis) in any manner possible, including the liberal usage of circular reasoning.
    My reference is the study of the philosophy behind it and sadly, personal experience.
    It is also barbaric and can and does tend to ruin the lives of people by ruination of their reputation through such labelling. Additionally as in my case an autoimmune disease resulting in chronic clinical malnutrition has dogged me my entire life(Celiac Sprue). I have studied science at the unversity level so I claim to know from this a bit about what the scientific method is, how it works both foundationally and in process, and how to measure what Psychiatry is and does against this set of criteria.
    Psychology on the other hand is science. Our society seems to prefer involuntary commitments as a means of social control and also a way to support the pharmaceutical companies, hospital corporations, etc. through this entire process. Politicians, the media, and Psychiatry will never admit the logical or social control ethical problems in continue to do this--to say nothing of the constitutional issues and the issue of how generally Psychiatry has perverted the law. The legal system accepts it despite it is unscientific in process, philosophy, and methodology. Only in research are there glimmers of some science, but this is never integrated into its thinking and practices fully. The public is perenially told that "someday" Psychiatry will have enough science to create "breakthroughs". Nonsense. It is and remains an industry out to perpetuate itself, and in so doing, neither uses any science to speak of nor incorporates any justifiable reason to use the treatments it does other than these tend to justify itself as a means of social control--one major reason there is no sufficient brake on its practical barbarity and ineffectual practices--which fact is then used in an endless cycle to justify more funding, again, with the promise that "someday" will happen, when "someday" is inherently a pipe dream that can never happen. It is however an effective "lure" to keep itself going--nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Psychiatry deals with the most complicated subject in the known universe. Thus, although it's methods may be scientific, it's margin of error is so great that it is a far from exact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Perhaps, a more important question would be:

    Are all psychiatrists mentally ill?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Here I put forth an open question to you all-

    Is PSYCHIATRY a legitimate science ?

    If so, why?

    If no, Why not?

    I understand this may seem a silly question to some but after much research into this field I have found many agree it is a real science and just as many think it is not.

    Those that state 'of course it is!' -Please, back up your claim. Where is the scientific method, proof and findings? I hear those in the field claim 'Its a biological disease' yet, where is the evidence this is true? links to research papers/journals etc. ?

    Could it be possible there is something going on here? Another cause perhaps?

    Then those of you who disagree and say that psychiatry is NOT true science and therefore unscientific- Please, do the same. Present proof and back up your claims.
    Many will claim psychiatry is merely for social control. If you think this to be the case where can you show that this particular science is 'fake' ?

    I wish those interested to have an open discussion on the topic here..
    Psychology= speculation (the musings of Freud, Jung, Maslow, etc...although this is changing)

    Psychiatry= prescription mongering (the last two I've seen wrote prescriptions for me in order to save time after speaking with me for 5 minutes or less...one said, "Are you still feeling down? Ok, take 20 more milligrams of Effexor XR" I saw him twice in 6 months...)

    Neuropsychiatry= less speculation; a synthesis between mind/body behavior
    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your opinion seems highly biased by your past experiences. Some of us are only functional on a day to day basis because of the prescription medications we received from prescriptions via psychiatrists.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Forgive me if I'm wrong
    Tell me about your childhood. Your parents, the people who raised you, what were they like? Were they strict, demanding? Did they always want the best for you? How were your grades, were you a good student? I think most young people would want to please their parents and academic achievement would be one way. When accomplishment doesn't meet with with expectation, parents may react in manner that might be hard to understand at a young age. Tell me how your parents handled a situation where you didn't do as well as they expected.

    I'm interested in why you ask for forgiveness. Do you do that often? Are you a confident person? As I see it I think you may be suffering from .....Oh I'm sorry, our time is up. Please see the secretary on the way out and book another appointment.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    Aside from the inherent humor in the remark, let us analyze this:1)Since the definition of mental illness is only that made by those constructing those as published in the DSM books, and the only observers are those who are employed in the field of mental health, and no one is ever observing their behavior including oversight agencies, USDOJ(rarely if ever), etc., then the question is by its very nature unanswerable. There is certainly insufficient science behind it, and as such, the field of Psychiatry has to be regarded as business-driven(ie, drug companies) and social control driven(ie, mental hospitals and wards and involuntary commitment laws). Of course, if one modified the definition of mental illness to include people who go into fields that are unethical and do harm, then yes, Psychiatrists clearly ARE "mentally ill".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Think about it..Piget's "Stages of Cognitive Development" are still taught as dogma in Psych 101

    Perhaps in some sad courses, not in the one I recently took about child development, nor several others in education.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •