Topic on Talk:Psychiatry

"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?" That is false. The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories. The bourgeoisie do not "regularly make secret plans to harm the proletariat", they instead pursue their own class interests, or other yielding actions which will help them maintain power, not to "harm the proletariat". The ruling class does not regularly "meet up" in a office every week to discuss things such as "how can we murder more workers today?", instead, they will do actions that may seem well and good relative to them, but bad for the wokers. The bourgeoisie, like other classes, did not appear because a group of "bad men" began to gang-up with eachother two-hundred years ago, but out of the development of society which resulted in the small-lander owners, traders, ect. moving in to social and economic positions of power, which was further caused by the bourgeois revolutions.

Maintaining power involves harming the proletariat when they strike back. This includes criminal conspiracies to subvert or kill the proletariat; the bouregoisie will do everything in their power to suppress the proletariat, and one of those tactics includes secret harm.

Small examples:

• Battle of Blair Mountain
• Banana Massacre
• Homestead Strike
• Reesor Siding strike (Wikipedia link as a prolewiki page does not exist yet.)
• The mass murder of mineworkers in Marikana, South Africa.^[1]

Larger examples:

• Bouregois intelligence agencies' (CIA, FBI, etc.) attempts to globally subvert proletarian revolutions and socialist countries (USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos).

This is a revisionist claim. The bouregoisie regularly harms the proletariat for their benefit.

"The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories."

Can you elaborate?

Dialectial and Historical materialism are not conspiracy theories, but vaild topics of study within sociology and economics. If you, for all this time, thought that Marxism is a conspiracy theory (and agreed with that percived conspiracy theory), I do not think you can call yourself a Marxist, or not an educated one, at the least.

I did not ever talk about dialectical and historical materialism being conspiracy theories. It's another red herring.

"Funding from bouregois ­aligned organizations."

"Funding from the drug industry capitalist."

As I have asked before, where is this proof that all of these researchers are being "funded" by "Big-pharma"? There are many medical specialists, and paying them the amont of money needed to become full "shills" (if such a thing is possible) will require a large transfer of money, where are these payments?

Here.^[2][3][4]

• Drug companies have paid communication companies to write studies and then authors to take authorship.^[5][6]

"[my sources are from] Independent researchers." Whatever. These "independent researchers" are little more than a small collection of conmen and conspiratorialists that are of highly dubious academic backrounds. They prove nothing.

So you dismissed independent researches as being conspiracy theorists? Can you elaborate on why these independent researchers are "conspiratorialists"? (There has to be a limit on what you call a conspiracy theorist; because so far you just declared opposing critics of psychiatry conspiracy theorists.)

What do you think of industry researchers then? because science demands that explanations can be tested independent of authority.

"I asked you to cite those studies." Why do you require me to cite studies to prove that, for example, anxiety exists? If you wish to, you can study the orgins of our understanding of these commonly-known mental topics. I do not need to cite common knowledge.

You claim that mental disorders have objective testing; but you're not showing me any material instances of objective testing. This is a problem, because without any reference to backup your claim, I can not attempt to falsify your claim; and thefore I won't believe your claim.

"How are my sources fringe?" They contain widely-discredited assertions and are not supported by most of academia.

How are their assertions discredited?

The lack of support by "academia" (whatever academia it is) does not mean much. It is an argumentum ad populum. So, if the academia flimsily criticized independent researchers; then their criticisms are not valid, regardless of their authority.

"Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution." Then why is not Faith Healing widely used? If "the masses" are such fools as you imply them to be, how would they be able to understand the false nature of Faith Healing? That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert. If what you were saying was true, Anti-psychiatry would be a massively popular movement, why? Because few, if any people want poison to be put in their bodies by megacorporations, however, psychiatric drugs are largely useful, as I have proved already.

Faith Healing does not contain the same oppresive power as drugs. The effect of faith healing is merely placebo, while psychiatric drugs are placebo with harmful side effects that can destroy the body.

"That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert."

Then why is the Psychiatric industry not obviously alerting the people that drugs are placebo?

Psuedoscientists regularly peddle placebos marketed as drugs to solve a problem to scam the working class: Chiropractics, colon cleansers, homepathy, etc. are promoted by capitalist governments. The existence of psuedoscientific capitalists disproves this point.

"They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited"." Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science. There exists a esoteric community of Flat-Earthers who would swear that Earth is flat, and the Moon Landings were a hoax, but does that mean that it has been "proven" that Earth is flat, or that the Moon Landings have been "proven" to be fake, of course not. Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful.

"Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science."

Once again, another loaded argument. They are not conspiracy theorists, they are independent researchers.

Psychiatry is not a science; because mental disorders lack the ability to be objectively disproven.

The failure of flat earthers to disprove the claim that Earth is round is different from independent researching disproving the notion that psychiatric drugs are more effective than placebos. The former lack real evidence and do not attempt to disprove the flat earth theory; the latter attempts to disprove the notion that psychiatric drugs are more effective than placebo, and they have disproven that notion.

"Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful."

Common consensus is useless as the consensus is regularly manipulated by the bouregoisie through propaganda. Also, dogma is not science.

"How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me." They are discredited in this matter because, not only have they been criticised many times, their claims go directly against the proven understanding of a topic, making (among other reasons) their assertions false. Perhaps you should be more critical with the authors you read.

1. So the independent researchers are discredited (to you) because they've been criticized many times. What are these criticisms they recieved?
2. and if their claims go against "proven understanding", apparently that makes them false? What do you mean by proven understanding? The notion that Psychiatry is a science has been disproved; simply because the theory of mental disorders lack the ability for objective falsification.

"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." Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making. Secondly, you are false. Learning science (did my wording "related topic" confuse you?) does commonly result in one understanding science. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it. This is, needless to say, not how one applies and improves science. I see no reason why you wound contest me here.

"Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making."

I already did. you kept asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true); I pointed out that's wrong. (Learners must understand science to apply it properly; learning a science-related field does not directly teach science.) You were saying that learning a topic related to Science will therefore learn science, which is just incorrect.

"Learning science … does commonly result in one understanding science."

This is not what you or I was arguing. You were arguing that learning a science-related topic will result in learning science. I was stating that learning a science-related does not immediately result in an understanding of science.

P.S Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy. You argue that some topics are related to science (some X) and that learners know science (all Y), therefore the learner learns science.

"Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it."

A red herring. I never said nor stated this claim. Ever.

"I see no reason why you wound contest me here."

I don't contest that claim and never did. You are distorting my arguments and loading yours with rhetoric to attack my character, not my argument.

"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." To respond to this claim, I will first have to ask two questions; what does "know" mean? To be aware of something through observation or information. What does "understand" mean? To have comprehension of something. They practically mean the same thing in this case. You are merely using words to attempt to disprove my argument for the sake of disproving my argument. I have proved to you that psychiatrists UNDERSTAND science.

You didn't prove anything. You literally just stated the definitions of know and understand.

"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."

Indeed, science does require that, and psychiatry does provide testing and such.

Can you cite the objective testing that you keep talking about then? because you have not given me a single citation to one.

What do you mean "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested"? For a mental disorder to be classifed in the first place, it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on. A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists.

They do not have an objective (not subjective) test that gives the opportunity to disprove it. It is a requirement of science for explanations to be objectively falsifiable. This is what I mean when I say that "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested".

"it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on."

• Debate does not matter for a science.
• Are mental disorders based on objective testing? No.

Please, cite your source for this supposed testing, because you have not given me a citation, since I asked.

"A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists."

What do you mean by a personal scale? Do you mean a subjective scale? If so, then that's what I was saying since this fight started.

If scientists aren't making the diagnoses, then who are making the diagnoses? That is a big red flag for a supposedly "scientific" institution.

Psychiatry is not "based" on psychiatric diagnoses, but is based on many other scientific fields. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply the main way in which psychiatry is applied.

Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders; you are straight up wrong.^[7]

Wikipedia even states that Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders: Psychiatry is [a psuedoscience] devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders.

"but is based on many other scientific fields."

Any proof for this?

"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?" What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages. If you think that paying for a psychiatrist is a waste of money, that still does not mean they are bourgeois in regards to their economic relations. Your absurd attempts to lie and vilify people who work in that field are not only trival to disprove, they are becoming tiresome on me personally.

"What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages."

They indeed don't hire workers; but they do require people to pay them for their useless service. They are at least leeches.

"I did not disregard science as a tool." You said it was being used as a "tool". This require no additional dispute.

Yeah, I said that science is being used as tool by the bourgeoisie. I did not disregard science as just a tool to suppress the worker. It is important to discern being utilized as a tool by the bouregoisie from being disregarded as a tool for the bourgoisie.

"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." "I showed you a large number of sources which prove my words. I suggest you read them."

Where are your sources then? Because I saw 4 citations to pages, none of which referenced any actual studies.

"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." There is nothing productive found here, however, atleast I now am aware that you adhere to the "NWO" conspiracy.

I do not believe in the NWO conspiracy; you are just trying to insult me.

To conclude, I have nothing more to say to you. I have disproven all of your claims and conspiracy theories, many times. My orginal position stands:

You have not disproved a single thing I said; you just denied what I'm saying and then strawmanned my arguments.

"This article should remain based upon facts and scientific consensus, not the fringe, conspiratorial opinions of a single editor."

I will indeed attempt to follow this advice. However, you also should follow this advice yourself; because you don't seem to be following that motto in this case. (You refuse to cite studies for claims; you disregard independent researches who go against mainstream dogma as "discredited" (without any in depth explanation as to why); strawman my arguments to make me look bad; insult me instead of criticizing my arguments.)