09 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Why should we trust doctors to manipulate something that hasn't (and can't be) been established as a science?
I just got called 'paranoid schizophrenic'. I just want to know whether this belongs in the science forum or not?
I just got called 'paranoid schizophrenic'.
did you get called this by a qualified psychiatrist?
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWhy couldn't it be established as a science? Surely Psychiatry is the scientific study of the brain? Sure there are people who do not use scientific methods, but that does not mean anyone studying psychiatry is not.
Why should we trust doctors to manipulate something that hasn't (and can't be) been established as a science?
I just got called 'paranoid schizophrenic'. I just want to know whether this belongs in the science forum or not?
'paranoid schizophrenia' is a classification of a group of medical conditions that have certain similarities.
As far as I know (I am no expert), it is not know what all the different causes for this medical condition are, nor exactly what goes wrong. However some things about it are known and it can be and is, studied scientifically and can be diagnosed scientifically.
I am fairly sure however that what you have posted so far on this forum is insufficient to give such a diagnosis.
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
OK, prove to me that psychiatry is a science and I promise to answer your question in full and earnest detail. Thnx for caring.
OK, prove to me that
why can’t it be a science?
What barrier is there to using scientific method to investigate mental illness?
Wherever and whenever scientific method is used to investigate mental illness in psychiatry, that psychiatry is a science by definition so no “proof” needed to demonstrate that it is a science because it is true by definition.
For example, if a sound double-blind test is used to demonstrate that a particular drug deduces the symptoms of a particular mental illness ( i.e. scientific method is used ) and then the drag becomes the generally accepted treatment for that mental illness in psychiatry as a result of that test then that knowledge of that treatment becomes a truly scientific part of psychiatry ( so at least that part of psychiatry is a science by definition ) .
09 Jul 12
7 edits
Originally posted by humyIt can't be a science because there is no normal to set results against.OK, prove to me that
why can’t it be a science?
What barrier is there to using scientific method to investigate mental illness?
Wherever and whenever scientific method is used to investigate mental illness in psychiatry, that psychiatry is a science by definition so no “proof” needed to demonstrate that it is a science because it is true by ...[text shortened]... c part of psychiatry ( so at least that part of psychiatry is a science by definition ) .
And no, being dead or comatose will produce a result of less psychotic symptoms so is that a cure??
09 Jul 12
15 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadModern day psychiatry is basic butchery of the brain. It has no discipline and no standards. It's just a case of getting people to shut the hell up (sorry for profanity but was unavoidable).
Why couldn't it be established as a science? Surely Psychiatry is the scientific study of the brain? Sure there are people who do not use scientific methods, but that does not mean anyone studying psychiatry is not.
[b]I just got called 'paranoid schizophrenic'. I just want to know whether this belongs in the science forum or not?
'paranoid schizo er that what you have posted so far on this forum is insufficient to give such a diagnosis.[/b]
But this is my point with my previous posts. There are failings in science itself. The impetus is on results and the ends justify the means.
That's not always true and especially so with the human brain.
09 Jul 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
It can't be a science because there is no normal to set results against.
And no, being dead or comatose will produce a result of less psychotic symptoms so is that a cure??
It can't be a science because there is no normal to set results against.
You don't need to define “normal” to know that regular delusions, hallucinations, nervous breakdowns etc are a bad thing and therefore should be defined as mental illness.
Somebody who thinks he is Jesus the God and wants to jump of a skyscraper because he believes he can fly should be defined as mentally ill no matter how you look at it and not being able to define normal is irrelevant to this.
And no, being dead or comatose will produce a result of less psychotic symptoms so is that a cure??
I didn't say being dead or comatose is a cure nor in any way imply so.
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou don't seem to understand what psychiatry is. It is not an attempt to make everyones brain identical. It is the study of the brain - whatever that brain might be. One does not need a normal in order to study something. Thats like saying 'there are no 'normal' stars (true) therefore we cant study stars (false).
It can't be a science because there is no normal to set results against.
09 Jul 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Modern day psychiatry is basic butchery of the brain. It has no discipline and no standards. It's just a case of getting people to shut the hell up (sorry for profanity but was unavoidable).
But this is my point with my previous posts. There are failings in science itself. The impetus is on results and the ends justify the means.
That's not always true and especially so with the human brain.
Modern day psychiatry is basic butchery of the brain. It has no discipline and no standards.
How would you know this?
There are failings in science itself. The impetus is on results and the ends justify the means.
Nonsense. Science does not give impetus to “the ends justify the means”. Where did you get that from?
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by humyWas Van Gogh mad when he cut off his ear or was he in 'love'?It can't be a science because there is no normal to set results against.
You don't need to define “normal” to know that regular delusions, hallucinations, nervous breakdowns etc are a bad thing and therefore should be defined as mental illness.
Somebody who thinks he is Jesus the God and wants to jump of a skyscraper because he believes he c ...[text shortened]... at a cure?? [/quote]
I didn't say being dead or comatose is a cure nor in any way imply so.
I propose that language structure is at fault and should be altered to be futuristic.