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 7: | Line 7: | ||
I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism". | I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism". | ||
No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further | No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further intention of repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven. | ||
==Adressing your arguments== | ==Adressing your arguments== | ||
''"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"'' | ''"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"'' | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
''"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"'' | ''"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"'' | ||
What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to | What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to begin with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it. | ||
''"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."'' | ''"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."'' | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
''"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."'' | ''"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."'' | ||
By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable. | By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* would have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable. | ||
''"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner '''must''' understand science to apply it properly."'' | ''"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner '''must''' understand science to apply it properly."'' | ||