I don't want to say anything mean here; but you kinda come off disrespectful. I dislike the accusatory tone of associating rational skepticism of (psuedoscientific) fields with quack theories and professions. This is the same behavior used to suppress dissent and critical thinking.
Also, I noticed that you haven't responded to some of my arguments in your comment. Do you plan to respond to them?
"Still, [mental disorders] are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested." Mental disorders are in fact based in science and are directly tested.
Any proof for this? Because mental disorders are currently based in subjective analysis; so they cannot be directly tested (to be disproved).
Have mental disorders been attempted to be disproved? I don't think so, but feel free to post any arguments to the contrary.
What are the causes for mental disorders? As I tried searching, there seems to be no consistent testable cause for mental disorders, which is neccessary to be able to falsify it.
In order for a mental disorder to be categorised and formalised in the first place, it must undergo decades of research, testing, and review.
There's already complexity here; who is doing the research; who is doing the testing; who is doing the review? In the case of research on Psychiatric drugs; most of those are done by pharmaceutical companies, which conveniently control studies that get published.
In order for a mental disorder to be classified as such, it requires extensive usage of the scientific method.
I don't know man; disorders in the DSM were built on expert consensus, not the scientific method.
If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.
Nah, I agree with that.
"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 Psychiatr[ist]s are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification."
"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."
You accuse me of making claims I never even contemplated to make. I never said that "let's trust only the expert-psychiatrists", nor did I say that "look! this one person said it, therefore it must be true!".
You didn't say those claims; because I never said you did. I said that the argument is derived from deduction of one definition, not a collective definition.
That definition I provided is agreed upon by most others in that field, and outside that field, for that matter. I merely gave that one particular quote because it was easy to locate, and well-worded. Even people outside that field can easily understand that is what psychiatry is. You are furthermore undermining the fact that the definition (which is very commonly agreed upon) shows that the definition you provided in the start of the article (before it was removed) is false, and shows your likely lack of understanding in this topic.
"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."
That is your own heterodox interpretation of a mental disorder. I gave you the scientific definition of a mental disorder, which was found with empirical investigation. If you are unwilling to agree with the commonly understood definition of this topic, and instead use your philosophical view, than we cannot reach an agreement.
This was the original definition of 'mental disorder'. The term got perverted into mental illness; and the fact that "mental disorder" has such a lose definition is suspicious for a field that supposedly deems itself "scientific".
"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?"
They are scientific as I have already shown you. A mental disorder is a cognitive phenomenon which actively impedes a person from doing common actions.
- What is a common action?
- What are the causes for mental disorders?
- Are mental disorders falsifiable?
While some mental disorders I disagree with in their contents, most are what could be understood as disorders; they are harmful to a person, to the degree in which they often require external assistance.
Except, this isn't even true.
- Mental disorders lack any objective analysis; so the supposed "harm" cannot be tested.
- As mental disorders lack real objective analysis, there is therefore no way to prove if these suppoesd "disorders" are curable.
- Logically, the result is that psychiatric drugs are as effective as placebo.
"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."
"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 quote in which I presented to you indicates that Psychiatrists (atleast in the USA, of course) must have a four-year education in a scientific topic to even get to the higher-stages of an education in psychiatry. This information can be found elsewhere.
It does not matter if the topic is "scientific"; people must understand science in order to be (good) scientists; otherwise they will fail to properly enforce and utilize the principles of science (falsifiability, testing, experimental data, etc.).
The rest of that paragrath is a misrepresentation of what psychiatrists do as a career, they are not "scientists" per se, but merely apply an existing field that relates to science.
and what is that existing field?
People who work in a medical field are not necessarily scientists, yet for them to get to education for such an occupation in the first place, they must study a topic that deeply relates to science.
Again, it does not matter if the topic relates to science; the learner must understand science and it's principles in order to properly apply and utilize science.
The second paragrapth is unclear in what it is attempting to say, nor is your comparison to "defining capitalists" vaild.
how is it not valid?
I was arguing that the way you portray psychiatrists was dishonest.
Can you elaborate?
However, it is something else to target the people who work in said field.
So what makes this any different from, say, criticizing CIA collaborators who work in the field of military intelligence (where not everyone is working in the favour of the bourgeoisie?
Psychiatrists are not people who extract surplus value, steal from workers
I disagreeably argue that Psychiatrists extract wealth from workers for an imaginary solution that inevitably does not work. I view the relationship this way, as psychiatric disorders have been proven to be practically meaningless.
They are people, almost always proletarians, who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them.
- What makes psychiatrists any more proletarian than a worker? They do not produce any real value (intellectual aid in this case), but instead extract value.
- "who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them." Those are therapists, not psychiatrists.
You could argue that the care they give is ineffective, if not harmful, but they themselves likely do not know or understand your problems with the field they work in, and how psychiatry itself is being abused by the present economic and political order.
Then why isn't western Psychiatry being well regulated?
If Psychiatrists supposedly know how psychiatry is being abused; then why haven't they acted to shift it away from politics and economics?
"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."
"This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum"
You are once again proving me correct when I argue that the Anti-psychiatry community contains Anti-scientific ideas which are similar to those seen with Christian fundamentalists and Climate Change-deniers.
How is proving that the drug industry opposes anti-psychiatry "anti-science"? The field of vaccines contains anti-scientific ideas; but they are peddled by anti-vaccine advocates, who do not neccessary study vaccines?
Also, you once again attempted the association fallacy. What "anti-science ideas" are you talking about?
Firstly, I said that Anti-psychiatry is unpopular among the scientific community, particularly with people who occupy a medical-related field.
Yes, it's unpopular because most people do not understand what science is.
You, however, claim that I am false because the "drug industry" does not support it.
I never claimed that "you were false" or whatever.
or you are claiming that the drug industry in the USA is in control of the ideas of, and has subverted, scientists and medical specialists.
That's what I think, yes. The drug industry aided in the bouregois subversion of science and medicine; and it still does today.
This is the exact same mentality of Climate Change-deniers; they will refuse to accept proven facts about ecological damage, pollution, ect. all because, as they claim, the scientists who did that research who secretly "shills" to an underground conspiracy of "globalists" who had paid them all off.
Do you have any proof of that claim? I don't think anti-psychiatry advocates are paid off by drug industry capitalists.
I am not saying, necessarily, that your ideas are just as false and unproven as Climate Change-deniers or Christian extremists,
Then why do you try to connect my points to Christian extremists and Climate Change denial?
I am merely stating that you are refusing to consider the views of people educated in this matter
Well I didn't see you directly argue that. If you argued this earlier, then show me the text where you argued this.
simply because you have a clear bias in favor of Anti-psychiatry, which is certainly not how one advances science.
I am not arguing against psychiatry solely because of bias; I argue against psychiatry being a science; because the material reality points to Psychiatry being unscientific. (Mental disorders have been disproven several times, yet they are propped up as scientific.[1])
Nor is this an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
It is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The argument structure is exactly "less people talk about X [anti-psychiatry]; therefore it's Y [a psuedoscience]."
The reasons why the Anti-psychiatry community is misguided in their ideas is much more complex than simple support or lack thereof. It is simply a notable trend that many pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific movements often have little-or-no support from people who have an education in scientific topics.
Anti-psychiatry advocates are misguided because they aren't popular? This could be applied to U.S Marxists being misguided because Marxism isn't popular in the U.S. It is an ad populum fallacy by argument structure.
This trend can be seen with "quantum mysticism", Anti-vaccine movements, astrology, and so on. Of course, the reason why all of the ideas and movements I mentioned are false is much more complex than simply the fact that they are no support from the scientific community,
- What are those reasons?
- Who is the "scientific community" in this case?
- What are the "complex" reasons then?
yet, the fact the they have no support is still nonetheless indicative of something, is it not?
Anti-psychiatry's unpopularity is indicative of the capitalist distortion of science; suppression of skepticism; and the disguised colonization of minorities; being a successful operation.
"Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to." Stop attempting to trivialize your participation with these communites. You were on the Anti-psychiatry community for months if not years,
How am I trivializing my participation? I posted about antipsychiatry to two instances and only posted one community. To be exact, I was on the anti-psychiatry community for 4 months.
Ok, saying that I only posted to anti-psychiatry was incorrect; I did post some comments about anti-psychiatry when they were relevant. Regardless, I only made anti-psychiatry posts to one anti-psychiatry community.
you made a large amont of the posts about "scientism", among others,
Again, I did not use the term scientism myself; other people did. Cite the comments and posts if you really think otherwise.
and you willingly defended that community up until you were banned.
Yes, because I consider anti-psychiatry a valid movement that deserves to be recognized by Marxists. An admin banning me because I tell them to check your sources to self-verify my point about ADHD lacking objective analyis is a bad (and bullshit) reason to ban someone. It just reeks of being afraid of skepticism.
How is this any different from you having a pro-psychiatry bias and defending psychiatry?
Again, I do not use the term scientism; that is what the website uses as it's title. I just merely copied the title.
You clearly have a vested interest in spreading Anti-psychiatry.
Yes, I do, because I'm anti-psychiatry. It's no different from being a marxist and being interested in spreading Marxism. I became antipsychiatry because I realized that psychiatry is a psuedoscience.
"Yeah, that's one thing [usage of psychiatry] I dislike about all the socialist countries."
How is helping people bad?
It isn't. It's a bastardization of my argument.
Furthermore, the fact that Socialist states use this medical field should show you that it is not a "big-pharma" plot to drug the poor, and instead is a vaild field concerning mental health
Deducting my argument from this one, socialist states legalizing black markets would show me that they're not a tool to suppress people and is instead a valid economy meant to help people.
Also, we must fully analyze Psychiatry in both economies.