Is Psychiatry a science.

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.

I think that would be under the heading of psychology not psychiatry, at least here in the US. I have a good friend who is a psychiatrist, child board certified, and he spends very little time actually talking to patients. He spends most of his time giving out mind altering drugs.

Here it is only psychologists and clergy actually spend time to talk to people.

I'm sure the conjectures generated by psychoanalysis are more pseudo- science than science , but medical procedures such as frontal lobe lobotomy (1949 nobel prize for that one ) thats without doubt science.

Originally posted by kaminsky
I'm sure the conjectures generated by psychoanalysis are more pseudo- science than science , but medical procedures such as frontal lobe lobotomy (1949 nobel prize for that one ) thats without doubt science.

lol yeah egg and spoon race.

But if science is to be truly methodical why does it allow for conjectures?

Is it OK to experiment on people like in Nazii Germany in the name of science or do we need to take responsibly for our humnanity? If so, is this still science or do we get to call it a name which reflects that responsibility such as futurism?

Is science out of control? Do the ends justify the means and at what stage do we say 'Enough!'?

Originally posted by kaminsky
I'm sure the conjectures generated by psychoanalysis are more pseudo- science than science , but medical procedures such as frontal lobe lobotomy (1949 nobel prize for that one ) thats without doubt science.

Hah, didn't know that, that's pretty funny.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
But if science is to be truly methodical why does it allow for conjectures?

Is it OK to experiment on people like in Nazii Germany in the name of science or do we need to take responsibly for our humnanity? If so, is this still science or do we get to call it a name which reflects that responsibility such as futurism?

Is science out of control? Do the ends justify the means and at what stage do we say 'Enough!'?

But if science is to be truly methodical why does it allow for conjectures?

conjecture is often part of scientific method and is used to make new hypotheses for testing.

Is it OK to experiment on people like in Nazii Germany in the name of science

NO -and real science does NOT say it is OK.

or do we need to take responsibly for our humanity?

yes -and stop blaming it on science when we don't.

Is science out of control?

NO, only some people are.

Do the ends justify the means

NO -and real science does NOT say this.

Originally posted by humy
But if science is to be truly methodical why does it allow for conjectures?

'Real' science doesn't have a voice that's my point. It's a reactive force.

Do the ends justify the means

NO -and real science does NOT say this.[/b]

You keep going on about 'real' science. I'm beginning to wonder if you recognize the difference between an abstract and a religion?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Originally posted by humy
[b] But if science is to be truly methodical why does it allow for conjectures?

'Real' science doesn't have a voice that's my point. It's a reactive force.

Do the ends justify the means

NO -and real science does NOT say this.[/b]

You keep going on about 'real' science. I'm beginning to wonder if you recognize the difference between an abstract and a religion?[/b]

Real' science doesn't have a voice

I did not say/imply real science has a “voice”. If it has no “voice”, how can it be blamed when people misuse it? and how would real science not having a “voice” make it not exist or make it impossible for it to be used for good?
Do you believe that real science does not or cannot exist and, if so, what is the premise of this belief?
Do you believe that real science is never used for good and, if so, what is the premise of this belief?

You keep going on about 'real' science.

in your earlier post, you said “Is it OK to experiment on people like in Nazii Germany in the name of science “
and so I implicitly tried to emphasize the fact that much Nazi 'science' which includes nonsense ideology about superior and inferior races is not real science by referring to “real science” that has NO Nazi ideology. I replied with “NO -and real science does NOT say it is OK. “ which must be logically correct because no part of real science says what we morally SHOULD do.
Also, no part of real science implies “the ends justify the means” as you keep repeatedly implying again and again.
Again, this is because science does not say what we morally SHOULD do.
It is reasonable to assume most scientists do not think the end justifies the means and most scientists do not believe science should be used for evil and don't use science for evil and most scientists correctly make the distinction between real science and pseudoscience because most understand scientific method.

OK, here is a simple question:

do you deny that science does NOT say what we morally SHOULD do?

If you do not deny this fact then you cannot blame science when some people misuse science because it is not science that tells them to misuse it or use it for evil.

Science is logically blameless for its misuse.

Originally posted by humy

Real' science doesn't have a voice

I did not say/imply real science has a “voice”. If it has no “voice”, how can it be blamed when people misuse it? and how would real science not having a “voice” make it not exist or make it impossible for it to be used for good?
Do you believe that real science does not or cannot exist and, if so, what is s them to misuse it or use it for evil.

Science is logically blameless for its misuse.

I did not say/imply real science has a “voice”. If it has no “voice”, how can it be blamed when people misuse it? and how would real science not having a “voice” make it not exist or make it impossible for it to be used for good?
Do you believe that real science does not or cannot exist and, if so, what is the premise of this belief?
Do you believe that real science is never used for good and, if so, what is the premise of this belief?

I 'have' said that 'real' science is a form of religion and that by ignoring this fact 'we' are in fact reinforcing religion.

The premise of my belief is that the results are media driven and that this in itself prejudices the results
in such a way as to make science suck donkey ****s.

I have compared such results to homeopathy which is well known to such such donkey ****s with earnest.

I have then gone on to remit that psychiatry is an even lesser study in so far that it is actually not a science at all. Just a bunch of condescending hypocrites that push pseudo-science down our necks, much in the same way as religion does.
I have challenged anyone to provide evidence to the contrary.


You keep going on about 'real' science.

in your earlier post, you said “Is it OK to experiment on people like in Nazii Germany in the name of science “
and so I implicitly tried to emphasize the fact that much Nazi 'science' which includes nonsense ideology about superior and inferior races is not real science by referring to “real science” that has NO Nazi ideology. I replied with “NO -and real science does NOT say it is OK. “ which must be logically correct because no part of real science says what we morally SHOULD do.
Also, no part of real science implies “the ends justify the means” as you keep repeatedly implying again and again.
Again, this is because science does not say what we morally SHOULD do.
It is reasonable to assume most scientists do not think the end justifies the means and most scientists do not believe science should be used for evil and don't use science for evil and most scientists correctly make the distinction between real science and pseudoscience because most understand scientific method.

OK, here is a simple question:

do you deny that science does NOT say what we morally SHOULD do?

Yes, I deny that emphatically. I am pursuant to the notion that science does not encourage moral and social responsibility. I have provided evidence to the contrary and also provided a means in which we can overcome such by way of restructuring language to be 'futuristic'

If you do not deny this fact then you cannot blame science when some people misuse science because it is not science that tells them to misuse it or use it for evil.

Science is logically blameless for its misuse.

That's why science requires both humanism and futurism. Both terms that are left to the arts and the unfounded.

More to the point though. I believe that it is both unfair and unkind to attack Christians who visit this forum and try and contribute to the future. Albeit in a 'we're all going to die a horrible death kind of way'. It seems at least that they have a disprovable theory.

KazetNagorra. My arrogant Dutch counterpart. I'm calling you out to answer this conundrum!

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I did not say/imply real science has a “voice”. If it has no “voice”, how can it be blamed when people misuse it? and how would real science not having a “voice” make it not exist or make it impossible for it to be used for good?
Do you believe that real science does not or cannot exist and, if so, what is the premise of this belief?
Do you believe that arrogant Dutch counterpart. I'm calling you out to answer this conundrum![/b]

I 'have' said that 'real' science is a form of religion

then you are wrong. Try looking up the definition of science:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“...
sci·ence

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
...”

how is the above a religion? Please explain.....

The premise of my belief is that the results are media driven and that this in itself prejudices the results

the misrepresentation of real science by the media is not evidence or a premise that real science is a religion nor that it doesn't exist.

That's why science requires both humanism and futurism.

WE require that when we use science. Science is just a tool we can use with compassion and futurism.
There is nothing in real science that discourages humanism and futurism -do you deny this? if so, exactly what part of real science discourages humanism and futurism?

am pursuant to the notion that science does not encourage moral and social responsibility.

yes, and it does not encourage moral and social irresponsibility by exactly the same measure -get it now?
And there is nothing in science that prevents us from using science with moral and social responsibility for the benefit of humanity and it is often used in that way.

Originally posted by humy

I 'have' said that 'real' science is a form of religion

then you are wrong. Try looking up the definition of science:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“...
sci·ence

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical al and social responsibility for the benefit of humanity and it is often used in that way.

I 'have' said that 'real' science is a form of religion

then you are wrong. Try looking up the definition of science:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“...
sci·ence

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
...”

how is the above a religion? Please explain.....

I looked up science and it referred me to 'truth'. So I looked up truth and it referred me to that of a 'thing' being 'true'. Smats of religion to me.

conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
conformity. THAT is an operand of a false statement.
'Fact' is science, 'truth' is religion in my book. And the 'fact' that our dictionaries endorse 'truth' shows me that religion is more of a driving force in our self-discovery than science is which sucks...well you can probably guess what it's sucking by now.
My point is that language structure is quintessential to our way of thinking.
And until such a point in time that science seriously deals with this with the magnitude science itself would administer. We're living a lie.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth?s=t

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I 'have' said that 'real' science is a form of religion

then you are wrong. Try looking up the definition of science:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“...
sci·ence

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences e're living a lie.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth?s=t[/b]

I looked up science and it referred me to 'truth'.

can you give me the link please? It may or may not be a totally good/reasonable/valid definition but you have to show it to me before I can tell you.

So I looked up truth and it referred me to that of a 'thing' being 'true'. Smats of religion to me.

well, I am not talking here about the definition of truth but of science. So, back to the topic;
how is the perfectly adequate definition of science I gave in my link indicate that science is a religion?
Reminder:

“...
science

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
...”

Please explain....

Originally posted by humy

I looked up science and it referred me to 'truth'.

can you give me the link please? It may or may not be a reasonable/valid definition but you have to show it to me before I can tell you.

So I looked up truth and it referred me to that of a 'thing' being 'true'. Smats of religion to me.

well, I am not talking here abou ...[text shortened]... terial world gained through observation and experimentation.
...”

Please explain....

It's in your own post and a branch from that link
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Science admitting that it deals with 'truths' is tantamount to admitting it deals in religion. Not 'of' religion but 'in' religion.

I would also go so far as to say that the fact science hasn't dealt with language structure in a proportionate way where we can see that a simple letter difference infers an entirely new view point. That it is not science at all but just another tool for religion.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
It's in your own post and a branch from that link
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or [b]truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences[/b]

I see. Didn't spot that. I think it would have been a better definition if the totally unnecessary “or truths” words was left out of it.
Note the operative word of “or” in “facts or truths “ that presumably, given this context, indicates it just means proven facts from “truths”.
Do you have a problem with proven facts?
Do proven facts indicate religion?

There is absolutely no indication that real science is a religion.
Real science is knowledge obtained through observations and experimentation and the flawless logic used to interpret observations and experimental results.

Originally posted by humy
I see. Didn't spot that. I think it would have been a better definition if the totally unnecessary “or truths” words was left out of it.
Note the operative word of “or” in “facts or [b]truths “ that presumably, given this context, indicates it just means proven facts from “truths”.
Do you have a problem with proven facts?
Do proven facts indicate religion?

There is absolutely no indication that real science is a religion.[/b]

There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure. It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself

I think science needs to evolve. Sonhouse sent me a link on machines reaching a singularity where they are able to develop tools to self-improve themselves and then ultra-intelligence goes through the roof. My suggestion is that science needs to evolve first in such-a-way that it is able to self-analyse, beginning with language structure.