> In short, this page contains potential misinformation, poorly sourced claims, and even themes of Anti-intellectualism and pseudo-science.
Firstly, the first sentence of this page claims that:
> "Psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on the idea of mental disorders (or mental illness); the notion of mental disorders are not based in any form of material analysis or science."
> This is false, both in its definition of psychiatry and its claims about the nature of mental disorders.
ok, I'll partly concede that I do thhink mental disorders are based in material analysis. Still, they are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested.
> Firstly, we must ask: what is psychiatry?
> According to Dr. Ananya Mandal, a well-known and trusted Pharmacologist,
> "Psychiatry is an area of medicine involving the study, diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders. A person's mental health is influenced by a combination of factors that are both specific to an individual as well as related to interactions with society, community, and family. There are several components to mental well being including a healthy self esteem, communication skills and the development of resilience." [source]
It does not matter if a person is trusted; everyone should be able to independently verify that Psychiatry is a science; but no. Apparently only Psychiatrys are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification.
> Indeed, the medical speciality of psychiatry is not merely a theological doctrine, or a form of esoteric wizardry, separate from all fields of intellectual study; an astrology of sorts, as this page is attempting to portray it, but is instead intimately associated with many other forms of natural science, psychology, and such.
You derived your argument from a deduction of a definition forwarded by *one* Psychiatrist. It's important to collectivly get definitions of a Psychiatrist before making this type of deductive argument.
> Secondly, we must again ask: are mental disorders material and scientific?
> In brief, a mental disorder is defined as
> "Mental disorders (or mental illnesses) are conditions that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior. They may be occasional or long-lasting (chronic). They can affect your ability to relate to others and function each day." [source]
That's not the definition I'm getting. At the fundamental definition, a mental disorder is a disorder of mentality; an opposition to an order of mentality.
We must agree on the definition of a mental disorder before being able to determine if mental disorders can be scientific.
> In other words, a mental disorder is largely based on the analysis of reality, namely, on consistant patterns in one's mental behavior that prevent certain common acivaties from being performed. While a diagnosis in this context certainly is not infailable, and may sometimes be distorted by external factors, you absolutely cannot say that it is not based in reality, nor that is is not based on science. The fact that the section on this page "Psychiatric Diagnoses" lacks any sort of citation ought to show the amont of misinformation that is presently being spread.
Ok. I'll admit that saying mental disorders are not based in reality is kinda dumb; disorders are a *disorder* of mentality.
However, they aren't exactly science. What is a mental disorder a disorder *of*? We still know a small portion of the brain, so who's authority is it to state how the mentality is supposed to work?
> Psychiatrists themselves are required, at least in the United States of America, to study for nearly a decade on a vast number of medical and psychological topics, and are furthermore required to pass a great number of examinations in order to be granted to ability to be employed in that particular field. According to BestAccreditedColleges, which commonly gives accurate and factual descriptions of technical careers
Do Psychiatrists study epistemology and understand Science? If not, then it doesn't matter if they studied medicine; they must understand science for them to be scientists.
> 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.
This argument is derived from the deduction of definition of a psychiatrist. Using this logic, I can define capitalists as "innocent people that help" and deduce that capitalists are helpful people.
> 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,
This is because it goes against western dogma. The drug industry is dominant in the United States; and Psychiatry is the tool the drug industry uses to extract wealth. Unsurprisingly, they are going to oppose anti-psychiatry.
> which in a scientific context, is almost always indicative of a fringe theory or pseudo-science.
This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum
Science is a system that gains knowledge through testing. From wikipedia:
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
We shouldn't rely on popularity to declare a field a psuedoscience.
> 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.
Why are those voices supposedly fringe and intellectually dubious? What is the majority of the medical community?
> 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.
I haven't added more citation due to laziness and my surprising exhaustion. I'll focus on adding more citations in the future; but remember that citations are a type of reference.
> This person has promoted Anti-psychiatry, and has been very active on Anti-psychiatry communities, on a number of social media platforms, particularly Lemmygrad, before they were banned for reasons I will soon adress.
Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to.
> On Lemmygrad, they had actively espoused Anti-scientific and generally Anti-intellectual rhetoric, using terms such as "Scientism" [source] (a term which is almost always used by Christian Extremists and Flat-Earthers to make science seem like a "religion"), claiming that psychiatric diagnosis is a "myth" [source], [source], . and further claiming that those very serious and proven disorders were "facts of culture" and "not based in the material world". [source]
I haven't used the term Scientism and probably won't ever. That's what the article uses as the website title, and I don't like that term either.
That being said: It's unfair to conflate the usage of a term to conspiracy theorists; I would liken this argument to ad hominem.
> spreading a research paper which contains discredited assertions and harmful misinformation from thirty years ago which they failed to even read themselves [source]
Yeah I should have read the paper. I apologize for that mistake; but is it really fair to use that as a reason to claim someone is anti-intellectual? I think it's intellectual to admit that I made a mistake.
> posting content which suggests that psychiatrists are rapists and mental abusers
I never said this in that post.
It’s the Rolling Stone; they pushed the false rape story of Jackie. Who would be surprised to find they lie (for corporations) at this point? They’re just another trashy magazine. It’s hilarious seeing Psychiatrists becoming so dishonest as soon as any critical thinking is applied to Psychiatry.
I only mentioned a rape story; I never conflated psychiatrists with rapists.
> With this user's lack of factual claims, Anti-intellectualism, and borderline ableist and denialist ideas about medical conditions, they have since been banned from Lemmygrad, and their rhetoric, along with the Anti-psychiatry community itself on Lemmygrad, are the subject of ongoing controversy within the website.
How are my ideas ableist and denialist? When did I ever deny the struggle of those diagnosed with mental disorders?
Denying that mental disorders are scientific is different from acknowledging the struggle those diagnosed with mental disorders go through.
> even claiming that ADHD and Autism (which is a condition which arises before or during birth)
Where is the evidence for this claim? As I said, claims must be independently and repeatedly testable to be scientific.
> nearly all of their edits have been on this page (which they clearly made solely to promote Anti-psychiatry), Anti-psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, or on uploading a library work titled "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness".
My anti-psychiatry edits constitute a small part of my contribution history; most of my contributions are adding Marxist-Leninist information like normal.
I added "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness" solely because it was a Marxist work; otherwise I wouldn't have added it to the library.
> but psychiatry is not the problem, Capitalism is, and it is Capitalism that is abusing psychiatry, like other medical fields, to sustain itself.
Psychiatry could become scientific if mental disorders actually had material testing (maybe biological testing); Capitalism indeed just worsens it.
> Indeed, the Soviet Union had, and the Republic of Cuba has psychiatry programs themselves.
Yeah, that's one thing I dislike about all the socialist countries.