Topic on Talk:Psychiatry

This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Wisconcom in the topic "Anti-Scientific Content" on Talk:Psychiatry. You can see other versions of this post at its history page.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 To claim, or atleast insinuate that psychiatrists are simply these "evil people" that want to drug the poor and who do not care about science is not only a gross distortion of the truth, it is itself an insult to science as a whole.
-The other parts of the page, notably the "Reputation" section, are completely biased and false. Anti-psychiatry, atleast to the extent in which the page promotes it, are by all measures not accepted in mainstream medical circles, which in a scientific context, is almost always indicative of a fringe theory or pseudo-science. I understand that ProleWiki does not maintain a Wikipedia-like "Neutral Point of View", which I think is commonly a postive thing, but this should be a different case entirely. This page cites merely a few fringe and intellectually dubious voices, and totally ignores the vast majority of the medical community on this matter, in order to confirm a long-standing bias. This is not science, nor is it vaild from a scientific view, this is the exact tactic of Biblical Creationists and Climate Change Deniers - ignore all reasonable and common academic consensus, and only focus on a single, fringe, "scholar" who agrees with you without proof of a scientific claim, in order to justify an Anti-scientific claim.
+The other parts of the page, notably the "Reputation" section, are completely biased and false. Anti-psychiatry, atleast to the extent in which the page promotes it, is by all measures not accepted in mainstream medical circles, which in a scientific context, is almost always indicative of a fringe theory or pseudo-science. I understand that ProleWiki does not maintain a Wikipedia-like "Neutral Point of View", which I think is commonly a postive thing, but this should be a different case entirely. This page cites merely a few fringe and intellectually dubious voices, and totally ignores the vast majority of the medical community on this matter, in order to confirm a long-standing bias. This is not science, nor is it vaild from a scientific view, this is the exact tactic of Biblical Creationists and Climate Change Deniers - ignore all reasonable and common academic consensus, and only focus on a single, fringe, "scholar" who agrees with you without proof of a scientific claim, in order to justify an Anti-scientific claim.
 Finally, I feel that it is impossible, and additionally irresponsible, to not mention a metaphorical elephant in the room: This page has entirely been created, and further edited by a single user, {{FlowMention|Amicchan}}, previously known on ProleWki as "PrivacyIsImportantComrade...".