Is Psychiatry a science.

Originally posted by humy

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?

Why are you answering questions with questions? I thought you were of an opinion. No?

I read books. Where I am when I read them is none of your business big nose!

Nonsense. Science does not give impetus to “the ends justify the means”. Where did you get that from?

Oh yes it does and I can provide you with several examples. That's exactly what it does!

Take for example the H5N1 virus (flu virus). One of the only vectors capable of infiltrating every cell of the human body. Initial tests killed the patient during 'genetic theropy'. Scientifically this was a success as it disproved a result.

My question is this. How can science be humanistic if it relies on the results of fallibility and doesn't care for human suffering? Psychiatry is a prime example.

n.b. good read 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat'.

There's nothing about science that requires it to be humanistic. Many people have used scientific methods to maximize the evil that they do.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's nothing about science that requires it to be humanistic. Many people have used scientific methods to maximize the evil that they do.

-and good. But I take your point.

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?

Well, I am certainly not a psychiatrist. I would still recommend you see one, not because they are "scientists" but it can help to talk to someone confidentially.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Why are you answering questions with questions? I thought you were of an opinion. No?

I read books. Where I am when I read them is none of your business big nose!

[b]Nonsense. Science does not give impetus to “the ends justify the means”. Where did you get that from?

Oh yes it does and I can provide you with several examples. That's exactly wha Psychiatry is a prime example.

n.b. good read 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat'.[/b]

Why are you answering questions with questions?

they were rhetorical questions that implicitly answer your questions by drawing attention to certain facts. For example, I asked “ How would you know this? “ which is a rhetorical question.

I read books. Where I am when I read them is none of your business big nose!

I didn't ask “where” you where and don't want to know that.
If a book said/implied “Modern day psychiatry is basic butchery of the brain. It has no discipline and no standards. “ then I will want to ask the author the same rhetorical question “ How would you know this? “ .

Take for example the H5N1 virus (flu virus). One of the only vectors capable of infiltrating every cell of the human body. Initial tests killed the patient during 'genetic theropy'. Scientifically this was a success as it disproved a result.

was it science that decided to do a dangerous test on a patient or was is a person or some people? ( note that this a rhetorical question designed to draw attention to the fact that if there is any misuse of science then that is not the fault of science but the people that misused it )
Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

My question is this. How can science be humanistic if it relies on the results of fallibility and doesn't care for human suffering?

as AThousandYoung pointed out, There's nothing about science that 'requires' ( in the purely logical sense ) it to be humanistic. For something to be humanistic, it has to be a person not a thing. Science is knowledge and technology gained via scientific method and also the application of that scientific method itself. So science is a thing and not a person so cannot be humanistic but, also, for the same reason, cannot be malicious. Only people can be humanistic or malicious.

It is up to US to use it with compassion and there is no barrier making it impossible for us to use it with compassion and people often DO use science with compassion and to the tremendous benefit of humanity and will continue to do so.

Psychiatry is a prime example.

regardless of whether that is true, without psychiatry, we would not have any sound treatments for mental illness and that would surely be a bad thing.
Just like any science, it can be misused. But the answer to that is stop the misuse and not the science.

More generically, this is what I think you don't get here:

Any science can be misused or used for evil. But the answer to that is stop the misuse and evil use and not the science.
This is because science can also be and often is used for good and therefore stopping the science will prevent that good.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I am certainly not a psychiatrist. I would still recommend you see one, not because they are "scientists" but it can help to talk to someone confidentially.

You might be thinking of a psychologist.

Psychiatry is a science. Psychology...it's a science also, but not remotely an exact science.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You might be thinking of a psychologist.

Psychiatry is a science. Psychology...it's a science also, but not remotely an exact science.

Well, I don't regard medicine in general very highly. But yes, more highly than psychology, certainly. Doctors are craftsmen more than scientists, and the way research is conducted in the world of medicine is, let's say, less than 5 sigma.

Originally posted by humy

Why are you answering questions with questions?

they were rhetorical questions that implicitly answer your questions by drawing attention to certain facts. For example, I asked “ How would you know this? “ which is a rhetorical question.

I read books. Where I am when I read them is none of your business big nose!

I didn often is used for good and therefore stopping the science will prevent that good. [/b]

My good man. It seems to me that you are deliberately mixing up the meanings of rhetorical rhapore and empirical evidence.


was it science that decided to do a dangerous test on a patient or was is a person or some people?

Yes it was science with a frilly nazii dress on.

Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

It was people following doctrine. Scientific doctrine.


regardless of whether that is true, without psychiatry, we would not have any sound treatments for mental illness and that would surely be a bad thing.
Just like any science, it can be misused. But the answer to that is stop the misuse and not the science.

Surely the answer would be to change our language structure to include futurism. Is my point. Totally open to suggestions on how to do so but really reckon it needs to be done.

And actually 'no'. you have yet to prove that psychiatry is a science. It's not but you go on like it is. It's a series of butchery is what it is with no place in science.

You keep this unscientific baloney up I'm going to put you in a nice little white jacket that does up behind the ears and have you 'delivered' to the general forum.

Basically that's what it feels like to have a bunch of riled up morons without any science qualifications mess with your head.

http://daclips.in/nicgkhifknci

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
My good man. It seems to me that you are deliberately mixing up the meanings of rhetorical rhapore and empirical evidence.


[b]was it science that decided to do a dangerous test on a patient or was is a person or some people?

Yes it was science with a frilly nazii dress on.

Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

It ithout any science qualifications mess with your head.

http://daclips.in/nicgkhifknci[/b]

Maybe we can have a debate if you tell me what Rhapore means. I couldn't find it in the dictionary. Perhaps this from Colbert?:

Bitch
A fourth theory is that Colbert has a deeper appreciation of his french heritage as "Report" translated in French is actually "rapport"; pronouced "RHA-PORE". Thus, the pronouncation could actually be an homage to his roots.
Any one or all of these theories may be correct, but there is only one official record of why "The Colbert Report" is pronounced "The Col-BEAR Re-PORE."

Because it's French, bitch.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Maybe we can have a debate if you tell me what Rhapore means. I couldn't find it in the dictionary. Perhaps this from Colbert?:

Bitch
A fourth theory is that Colbert has a deeper appreciation of his french heritage as "Report" translated in French is actually "rapport"; pronouced "RHA-PORE". Thus, the pronouncation could actually be an homage to his roo Colbert Report" is pronounced "The Col-BEAR Re-PORE."

Because it's French, bitch.

Je pense que vous peux parle pas Francais et sont etre une twat. Beech.

FYI Chien in French is 'Le Chien' pronounced 'you're my bitch now, shut up and do what I say'.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
My good man. It seems to me that you are deliberately mixing up the meanings of rhetorical rhapore and empirical evidence.


[b]was it science that decided to do a dangerous test on a patient or was is a person or some people?

Yes it was science with a frilly nazii dress on.

Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

It ithout any science qualifications mess with your head.

http://daclips.in/nicgkhifknci[/b]

Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

It was people following doctrine. Scientific doctrine.

NO NO NO neither Nazism or Social Darwinism is science.
They were NOT following a “ Scientific doctrine” but rather, at best, a pseudo-science.
And make sure you don't confuse Social Darwinism which is, at best, a false science, with biological Darwinism, which is both a science and a scientific fact -it is very important not to confuse the two like the Nazis did.

And actually 'no'. you have yet to prove that psychiatry is a science.

I did not claim to “prove” that psychiatry is a science. I challenge you to show where I said this! All I said was I said I don't NEED to “prove” psychiatry is a science.
I don't know how many alternative ways you want me to say that.


Psychiatry is often criticised as being the least scientific science and much of that criticism is justified BUT, it is STILL a science and it being the least scientific science ( if true ) doesn't does not logically entail it is not a real science nor does that logically entail that it couldn't be scientific. Here is somebody who agrees with that:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/psychiatry-bashing/
“...Psychiatry is arguably the least science-based of the medical specialties. Because of that, it comes in for a lot of criticism. Much of the criticism is justified, but some critics make the mistake of dismissing even the possibility that psychiatry could be scientific. ...”

Basically that's what it feels like to have a bunch of riled up morons without any science qualifications mess with your head.

Actually, I have several good science qualifications albeit not in psychiatry and I am sure some other posters here also have.

Originally posted by humy

Was it science that physically did the tests or people?

It was people following doctrine. Scientific doctrine.

NO NO NO neither Nazism or Social Darwinism is science.
They were NOT following a “ Scientific doctrine” but rather, at best, a pseudo-science.
And make sure you don't confuse Social Darwinism which is, at best, a false scien qualifications albeit not in psychiatry and I am sure some other posters here also have.

So are you trying to say to me that the least bit counts in a binary percussion??

It's either a science or it's not. What's it going to be?

If it's not a science then I suggest it's given an alternative name....hmmm..let me seee....Butchery springs to mind...

Apologies for not doing a more researched post. I'm a bit ill ATM.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
So are you trying to say to me that the least bit counts in a binary percussion??

It's either a science or it's not. What's it going to be?

If it's not a science then I suggest it's given an alternative name....hmmm..let me seee....Butchery springs to mind...

Apologies for not doing a more researched post. I'm a bit ill ATM.

So are you trying to say to me that the least bit counts in a binary percussion??

“binary percussion” of/for what?

It's either a science or it's not.

Why not both? Why is it impossible for a practice to be sometimes be applied scientifically AND at some other times be applied UNscientifically? Exactly what would exclude this possibility? ( answer, nothing )

What's it going to be?

both: see above.

I'm a bit ill ATM.

this depends on what you got but can modern medicine help you get better?

Originally posted by humy

So are you trying to say to me that the least bit counts in a binary percussion??

“binary percussion” of/for what?

It's either a science or it's not.

Why not both? Why is it impossible for a practice to be sometimes be applied scientifically AND at some other times be applied UNscientifically? Exactly what would ex ...[text shortened]... ll ATM. [/quote]
this depends on what you got but can modern medicine help you get better?

'Nothing'...I guess.