Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou may be arguing but put your money where your mouth is, produce a paper, not just a bunch of suppositions based on opinion. Where is your 5000 subject comparative test and so forth showing your work?
I am arguing whereby Psychiatry is Phenomenologically invalid as a tool to provide empirically and qualitatively valid results.
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIt would help if you considered the terms you are using and also if you put your argument in one post.
I am arguing whereby Psychiatry is Phenomenologically invalid as a tool to provide empirically and qualitatively valid results.
For example, are you referring to the use of a phenomenological approach to psychiatry such as at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28psychology%29
Or are you saying that psychiatry may be valid but is not "phenomenologically" valid in general?
When you say "results" suppose that a patient is aided significantly (the "results" ) but they aren't "valid" in some scientific way? It's like we used to say about the French scientist who typically says "It may work in practice but it doesn't work in theory it's not valid." Typically, psychiatrists like others in the healing arts in general are more interested in what works in practice than they are about scientific tests of theories.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo, you're not arguing "whereby". You're not arguing anything. You're spouting ungrammatical nonsense. It's one thing not to have any coherent ideas, but when you can't even put them into a correct sentence, it's time to pack up and go home to reconsider.
I am arguing whereby Psychiatry is Phenomenologically invalid as a tool to provide empirically and qualitatively valid results.
Richard
3 edits
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThanks for the 'heads-up', I'll try and take that into consideration in the future 😉
No, you're not arguing "whereby". You're not arguing anything. You're spouting ungrammatical nonsense. It's one thing not to have any coherent ideas, but when you can't even put them into a correct sentence, it's time to pack up and go home to reconsider.
Richard
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou need to look up the definitions of qualitative and quantitative. If you knew the real definitions of words before you use them you might put together a more powerful argument. As it is, when write sentences and use the wrong words we can't help but think all you are doing is reaching beyond your education and intelligence.
I am arguing whereby Psychiatry is Phenomenologically invalid as a tool to provide empirically and qualitatively valid results.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIf you believe that neurology or urology or cardiology or pulmonology or dermatology or radiology is a science, then yes, you should also believe that psychiatry is a science.
The post remains. Is Psychiatry a science??
Anyone bold enough to hazard a guess or are you happy in your delusions?
'God made man in his own image'. Think about that from past to future.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseGreat minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
You need to look up the definitions of qualitative and quantitative. If you knew the real definitions of words before you use them you might put together a more powerful argument. As it is, when write sentences and use the wrong words we can't help but think all you are doing is reaching beyond your education and intelligence.
I wonder where gibbering on about a person's syntax falls?
4 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThe problem here ( amongst other problems; there are quite a few ) is that the way you use certain words indicates you either don't know their exact meaning or don't care of their exact meaning. Either way, you ought to do something about that ( and that is strictly friendly advice ) .
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
I wonder where gibbering on about a person's syntax falls?
I would also very strongly advise to not only avoid statements of the general form “X represents Y” but, much more importantly, stop even ever thinking in those terms because the way you do it is always confused and flawed.
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
this claim is false.
Eleanor Roosevelt said this and she was wrong!
She was an advocate for civil rights.
But how can you be an advocate for civil rights without discussing people?
Therefore, according to her own statement above, she had a “small mind”!
Originally posted by humyAnd not giving it as a quote seems to me an attempt to feign eloquence.
The problem here ( amongst other problems; there are quite a few ) is that the way you use certain words indicates you either don't know their exact meaning or don't care of their exact meaning. Either way, you ought to do something about that ( and that is strictly friendly advice ) .
I would also very strongly advise to not only avoid statements of the ge ...[text shortened]... t discussing people?
Therefore, according to her own statement above, she had a “small mind”!
Since we are not telepathic we need to be able to read words and take them at face value. If I say I have qualitative evidence vitamin AAA is good for you that is not the same as saying I have quantitative evidence vitamin AAA is good for you.
You can assume we will understand your intent when you fail to use proper English but your assumption in many cases will be wrong.
I could say, I could dye for a coke, how are we supposed to know he is a fabric worker talking about trading work for a drink?
5 edits
I did get called paranoid schizophrenic by a doctor once some 10+ years ago.
This was after a 20 minute consultancy. I kept an eye on it over the years and
have visited any number of shrinks who can find nothing wrong with me.
Turns out that doctor was a quack and his diagnosis was both wrong and deeply
unprofessional.
I wrote this post firstly because I was called a schizo which, as I have explained,
is both unfounded and not based in science. But secondly and more importantly
there are vulnerable people out there getting butchered by a system that
is too stigmatized for most people to look at for any length of time.
If you can't take it seriously and actually address the issues on these terms
instead of making fun of my attempts then I really don't think you understand
the post and should just pack up and go home.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
And not giving it as a quote seems to me an attempt to feign eloquence.
Since we are not telepathic we need to be able to read words and take them at face value. If I say I have qualitative evidence vitamin AAA is good for you that is not the same as saying I have quantitative evidence vitamin AAA is good for you.
You can assume we will understand yo ...[text shortened]... coke, how are we supposed to know he is a fabric worker talking about trading work for a drink?
And not giving it as a quote seems to me an attempt to feign eloquence.
and commenting on it seems to me an attempt to feign superiority.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWell it seems to me that you are not helping and are instead increasing the stigmatization by strongly implying that being schizophrenic is a terrible thing and you even give it a nick name 'schizo' which makes it sound worse.
I wrote this post firstly because I was called a schizo which, as I have explained,
is both unfounded and not based in science. But secondly and more importantly
there are vulnerable people out there getting butchered by a system that
is too stigmatized for most people to look at for any length of time.
You are correct that doctors should be careful with their diagnoses. But you are wrong to then conclude that all doctors are wrong and unscientific.
I have two relatives that have schizophrenia and clearly need treatment. As far as I know there is currently no cure, and they are not really capable of holding down a job or taking much of an active role in society. We need scientists to study the condition more and find a treatment/cure. Having people like you simply dismissing it as unscientific because you had a bad experience with a quack does not help the field.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Well it seems to me that you are not helping and are instead increasing the stigmatization by strongly implying that being schizophrenic is a terrible thing and you even give it a nick name 'schizo' which makes it sound worse.
You are correct that doctors should be careful with their diagnoses. But you are wrong to then conclude that all doctors are wr ...[text shortened]... sing it as unscientific because you had a bad experience with a quack does not help the field.
strongly implying that being schizophrenic is a terrible thing
Did do such thing.
you even give it a nick name 'schizo'
I used a common abbreviation which is often used out of context due to stigmatism.
But you are wrong to then conclude that all doctors are wrong and unscientific.
Did no such thing but find myself strangely drawn towards it.
they are not really capable of holding down a job or taking much of an active role in society
Then why don't we create societies where they do fit in that don't cost $1000 a week?
you had a bad experience with a quack does not help the field.
I'm not the one hung-up on stuff that happened over a decade ago.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Who is 'they'?
[b]I'm not the one hung-up on stuff that happened over a decade ago.
You said you were now you say you aren't. Which is it?[/b]
Who is 'they'?
'they' are the sociological misnomers who don't think (or more importantly act) within a given set of complex standards.