Forum:Thank you evolutionary biologists.

I just wanted to send a thank you out there to everyone working in evolution. I was recently in a long and extremely irritating discussion with someone from the Anti-Psychiatry position. The person I was arguing against was continually taking a position that completely conflicted with psychiatric understanding from the last 70 years with a mixture of no evidence and evidence that didn't support their position that they seemingly didn't understand, and demonstrated a simply stunning lack of understanding about psychiatry, neuroscience, and the scientific method. It was the most irritating, frustrating, infuriating experience of my life, and I never want to repeat it.

At a point I came to the conclusion that I would rather kill myself then deal with idiots like them (there were three of them at a point) everyday. Then I realized that I feel kind of bad for people working in evolutionary biology in that regard.

So, let me just say to all of the Evolutionary Biologists out there, thank you, you're a stronger man then I.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most biologists don't spend their time arguing with cretinists - they just get on with their job. I'm sure that if being a biologist required a certain quote of cretinist interaction they'd have largely topped themselves by now. ONE / TALK 08:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, creationism is not even on the radar for most academics, much less evolutionary biologists, in terms of their everyday research at least. IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist), but I have drawn on some research in the field in doing my own research in cognitive science. The most annoying crap by far is not creationism but social scientists with no biological training who think they can just slap the word "evolution" on something and it becomes "scientific." I would imagine that it would be annoying to have your entire field questioned by close to half the population when it comes to life outside the lab though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would call myself an 'evolutionary biologist' (mainly from my work with Bill Hamilton at Sussex). I also, like Dr. Szasz, consider myself to be a 'Popperian' and a staunch supporter of the scientific method. Although I reject the term anti-psychiatrist, I have come to believe that psychiatry is a pseudoscience akin to homeopathy and astrology. Along the lines of Jerry Coyne I suppose. My views conflict with psychiatry over the past 70 years in that for example, I do not consider homosexuality to be a mental illness nor a genetic abnormality. Are you so sure they were 'idiots' or that you did not comprehend the argument? Nor do I think masturbation is the cause of insanity or that leucotomy, ECT, or brain disabling drugs have ever cured any medical disease.
 * I don't know who you are, but the complaints you just listed are not true. What you just said is pretty much the problem: The DSM does not list homosexuality or masturbation, and hasn't for a few decades. Your complains may have been valid in the 60s, but it isn't the case anymore. And complaining about modern Psychology because of what they were doing 40-50 years is a fallacy akin to saying that because some evolutionists in the 1920s were racists, then modern evolutionary theory must be bunk. And if you supported the Scientific Method, you would know that psychoactive drugs treat mental disorders, and if you knew pretty much anything about psychology, you would know that no one talks about "curing" mental disorders except for cranks. Lobotomy hasn't been used in almost 50 years, and modern ECT is extremely effective in dealing with temporary psychosis.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The person who started the thread refered to the last 70 years of psychiatry i.e from 1942. Dr Szasz in 1970 was the first major psychiatrist in 1970 (The Manufacture of Madness) to highlight the disgrace of the 'treatment' of homosexuals such as Alan Turing.. Even today, psychiatrists are still attempting a 'cure'. The psychoactive drugs used have dubious benefit and are akin to using morphine to cure cancer. ECT is not used for temporary psychosis - it is only approved for severe depression. There are thousands of psychiatrists who attempt cures using CBT - are they all cranks? You do not even seem to understand the difference between psychology and psychiatry which leads me to think you are again speaking from a position of ignorance. It is you who thus appears to be the 'crank' here.
 * Starting in the 1940s we kept finding all these relationships between the abnormal things that kept being found in the brain of mental patients and their symptoms. That was not a reference to the DSM listing homosexuality, and you know it. Additionally "There are thousands of psychiatrists who attempt cures [of homosexuality] using CBT - are they all cranks?" Yes. Yes they are. They are cranks, and retards, and as much representative of the mental health community as the biologists who say that evolution is a load of shit.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

CBT is used by thousands of psychiatrists to cure something you consider to be a brain disease? You think this is possible? Can one cure a brain tumour or a stroke with counselling? You have an illogical stance here and it is you who is a crank spouting woo. I repeat again here that there is no biological marker for even one mental illness. Much speculation but an utter failure to find it. Szasz has been proved scientifically correct. As he has said - 'no behaviour can be a disease. The mind is not a physical thing and therefore cannot suffer a disease. There are only brain diseases which are treated by neurology. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience.' You make great claims but offer no evidence at all. You have a faith akin to creationists. You argue from a position of total ignorance. Show me one biological scientific measurement/test that is used to diagnose a mental illness. Until you can back up your claim there is no point in debating with you.
 * CBT is used to treat mild conditions. That a person can consciously control autonomic reactions has been known for a few decades. And we are on a science wiki, and you are demanding evidence that a well accepted science is real. There are an enormous number of people working in the mental health field between the different professions in that field, and an enormous number of studies done or replicated every year should tell you something. If you want to take the position that it's all bullshit, you're going to have to come up with a pretty damn good conspiracy theory about why all of those people and all of those studies continue to work under the basic assumption that mental disorders exist and that their cause is biological in origin. And I'm not in the mood, so if you want to continue this, take an Intro to Psych course, I'm sure the instructor will be willing to humiliate you.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to take an Intro to Science class. As I see it the conversation here has progressed accordingly.

Logic and Empricism "Of course God exists"

Dirk "I do not see any evidence"

Logic and Empricism "Everyone knows that God exists"

Dirk "Many people believe that but I need to see some evidence for that claim"

Logic and Empricism "You need to take an Intro to Christianity"

Dirk "I have an honours degree in Theology"

Logic and Empricism " There are an enormous number of people that have produced papers to prove that God is real. You will have to come up with a good conspiracy theory bla bla bla"

Dirk "There is no scientific evidence. Please show me if you have found any and I will investigate the claim"

Logic and Empricism "It is down to you to back up your bullshit"

Dirk "It is you that is making the claim. I cannot prove a negative. Science does not proceed in this manner"

Logic and Empricism "I am sure a priest will be willing to humiliate you"

I call this an 'argumentum ad nauseum'. Please provide your evidence that mental illness can be diagnosed via a brain scan. If you want you can start with the APA Diagnostical Manual DSM5 which is due to be published in 2013 and is available online. Or maybe you can start with the Scientific American here from May 2012

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/05/11/why-are-there-no-biological-tests-in-psychiatry/

"evolutionary" biologists
Why "evolutionary"? Are there non-evolutionary biologists? Because if any science naturally has evolution core and central it's biology.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a specialty, like microbiology, botany, etc. Тy JFBAA 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my intention. I figure a biologist whose research focus is evolution is going to have to deal with more nutters then a botanist or a virologist. I just wanted to let the evolutionary biologists (and really anyone who deals with evolution professionally) know that while I wont help combat creationism, I do support them in any fights they get into over the subject.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The anti-relativity cranks can be even worse. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)