You are just trying to attack me with false claims of anti-science; you load your arguments with ad hominems and strawmans to accuse me of being anti-science.
You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat rewording manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and comradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.
You never disproved my arguments; actually, you just kept attacking me.
"you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after."
I deny that I do this. Can you show me where I supposedly performed this behavior?
While I do certainly apologise if I may have samed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:
"it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term."
Except I don't fit that term. I'm pro-science by supporting objective falsifiability and testing in explanations; and psychiatry does not fit that criteria; so therefore anti-psychiatry is a scientific position to take.
I'm not anti-science.
"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"
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 interest in 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
You distorted the context of the quote. The original quote was "(technically some of my points are conspiracy theories, but you are not using the original definition of the term)".
"No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism"."
Fallacious ad hominem. Again, I didn't use the term "scientism".
It is technically a conspiracy that big pharma is abusing scientific rhetoric to capitalize on health; but what is wrong with that?
This is the definition of a conspiracy (from wikipedia):
- <blockquotte>A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.
By this logic, Marxists are inherently conspiracy theorists. We argue that the bouregoisie regularly makes secret plans to ham the proletariat. So what is wrong with conspiracy theories in this case?
"How are my arguments "anti-science"?" Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or 'Globalists", and such.
You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truely cared at the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.
This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.
"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 being 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.
"What conflict of interest in particular?"
- Funding from bouregoisaligned organizations.
- Funding from the drug industry capitalist.
"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." Like all forms of science, the evolution in our understanding in things such as autism, ADHD, and other mental-related topics has taken decades to develop, with each researcher doing more research, which other researchers in the future use to do an even greater and complex degree of research. This process is not only iterative, it is the very nature of how human innovation goes forth; the building upon others' work, to create a better work, and progress humanity forwards.
I asked you to cite those studies. You did not answer my request; you gave out an explanation, not direct references to those "studies" you keep talking about.
"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 [sic].
"By Whom?"
Independent researchers.
"Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources?"
How are my sources fringe?
"If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly?"
Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution.
"I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless,"
They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited".
"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 [sic]."
How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me.
"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."
"Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists."
You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again. I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven.
You similarly ignore what I said in the second sentence. I particularly explained how the relationship between science - the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science.
"You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again."
because it was irrelevant and did not answer my argument. I said this to being with: It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly.
You said this in response: "Don't you think that by participating in a nearly-decade long education in a scientific topic, done by a professional institution such as a college or university, you perhaps will learn *something* that relates to science? You are ignoring the obvious, people who study to become a psychiatrist understand both science and the means in which science expands meaningfully," That quote just ignores my argument.
Yet you still keep asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true). I didn't ignore your paragraph; you just repeated your argument, which I already argued against; so I repeated mine in response.
"I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven."
You did not prove that psychiatrists understand science. You just assumed that a learner already knows science and therefore understand science; which is a circular argument.
"you present to me a new conspiracy theory that all physiatrists are brainless robots or FBI agents sent to drug homeless people are something to that nature."
What do you consider a conspiracy theory? Because it seems like you just call my criticisms of Psychiatry and my Marxist opinions on Psychiatry as "conspiracy theories".
"the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science."
Right; however science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified and tested through objective analysis.
Psychiatric diagnoses lacks objective falsification and testing; Psychiatry is based on psychiatric diagnoses; therefore Psychiatry is not a science.
"Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money." Are you unable to read what I said? Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie, only for you then to just repeat the same argument, nearly word-for-word, which I disproved. No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians. …
"Are you unable to read what I said?"
No. That is a rude insult that does not contribute anything to the discussion.
"Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie,
Your paragraph did not (dis)prove anything.
How are my claims absurd?
"No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians."
- Psychiatrists don't produce value; they do not produce commodities.
However, Psychiatrists still steal wealth from the "patient", and produces no commodities in return. How are Psychiatrists any more proletarian than workers that produce material commodities?
"If you are attempting to tell a joke, I have yet to find it funny, I would like to say. I am begining to suspect that you are repeating these disproven assertions simply for the sake of making your comment longer, as to make it seem more impressive, or perhaps to turn people away from reading it."
Once again, another false accusation to slander me.
"It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist."
"Psychiatry is likely practice[sic] because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage[sic] to permeate the majority populations[sic] as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances."
I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population". You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory (not that your currect sources have been meaningful). I have no reason to heed your Anti-intellectual claims regardless. There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed", in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage, as climate change has been undeniably proven, nor are harmful psuedosciences used in society on a mass-scale, as that would clearly be destructive and turn people against the Capitalists, considering that the Working Class are not moronic, and can identify such things. This is why, for example, Reiki or "Faith Healing" are not commonly used, as the working class understand that they do nothing useful, and can often be harmful. Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?
"I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population"."
I did not disregard science as a tool.
"You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory"
I don't cite any sources because I never claimed that science was a "tool" to suppress people.
Also, you don't cite any sources for most of your claims. You keep claiming that mental disorders have objective testing; yet you don't cite any sources for this claim.
"(not that your currect sources [sic] have been meaningful)."
How are my sources "not meaningful"? They are studies from independent researchers and have proper research protocols (randomized, double-blind, blindness to placebo, etc.) in place.
"There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed","
Sources for this claim? It's a big claim, considering how Psychiatrists are being bribed by drug companies to produce biased studies.[1]
Psychiatrists are bribed by drug companies to promote Psychiatric drugs.[2]
Drug companies regularly bribe physicians and Psychiatrists to buy their drugs. (This process is called "pharmaceutical detailing" to hide the fact that it's bribery.)
"in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage, as climate change has been undeniably proven,"
New World Order wouldn't benefit to make-up climate change; making up climate change would show their hypocrisy when trying to argue that capitalists just made-up climate change to promote alarmism.
As for "deep state" benefiting from faking climate change, deep state is a general definition, not referring to a specific object. So which deep state are you referring to? Whether a deep state would benefit from faking climate change depends on the characteristics of the deep state. For example, fossil fuel capitalists have secretly conspired to bribe to fund climate change denial campaigns; this would technically count as a "deep state". It's been known that fossil fuel companies have funded campaigns that promote climate change denial.[3]
Conversely, drug companies absolutely would benefit from forming a psuedoscientific system that prioritizes drugs to distract the working class from real solutions. An institution that manages to pass off as a science to the working class will entrench itself successfully, there by being able to be utilized as a political tool to suppress threats to the bourgeoisie. The bouregoisie would benefit to generate infighting in Marxists by trying to distort psychiatry into a science and distort anti-psychiatry into a psuedoscientific movement as a wedge into the workers.
Anyway, the rest of that quote is just ad hominem and guilt by association. You are trying to associate anti-psychiatry with climate-change denial and anti-vaccination, two unrelated movements which are actually against science.
"Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?"
- Psychiatry motivates people to buy drugs, which the drug industry would benefit frmo.
- The working class still treats it as a science; so Psychiatry can stay entrenched for longer.
- As a result, Psychiatry forms the perfect political tool to abuse and suppress threats to the bouregoisie (usually the proletariat).