Forum:Thomas Szasz

I understand that RationalWiki attempts to subscribe to a 'point of view that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with.'

With this in mind I am astonished reading your entry regarding Thomas Szasz and his critique of psychiatry. Szasz is a follower of Popper regarding the scientific method and Popper was supportive of Szasz's work. RationalWiki currently totally distorts and misrepresents Szasz's ideas and after setting up the 'straw man' argument attempts to ridicule. Quite pathetic. RationalWiki thus undermines its credibility as a source of scientific knowledge.

Please can someone, who has the knowledge and understanding of Szasz, amend this entry. Thanks.
 * You could bring it up here, or if you consider yourself to have knowledge and understanding Szasz edit it yourself. Scarlet A.pngsshole silverbrain.png 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I would not presume to have the knowledge and understanding of Szasz (he has a genuine intellect) although I have read a few of his books. But if possible I would like to edit it to include a few facts to replace blatant misrepresentations.
 * Szasz has taken the position that mental disorders are not real and that there is no biological origin to mental disorders. Both of these statements are simply idiotic and are disproven in literally the first day of an Intro to Abnormal Psychology course at any college in the world. That he still has credentials to teach psychiatry (built entirely on the understanding that mental disorders are biological in order) is simply dumbfounding to me.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this is the same position held by the APA and NIMH. There has been much speculation and research over the past 50 years for biological markers but to date there is no scientific evidence to show that this is the case. In fact the science shows that the brains of those deemed 'mentally ill' have no differences that can be ascertained as yet. Szasz is not a dualist in that he accepts that brain diseases exist but the mind is not a physical thing and therefore cannot be subject to scientific observation. As such psychiatry does not have one, yes not one, clinical measurement for the 300+ defined mental 'diseases'. Is PTSD caused by a biological fault or by a psychological issue caused by environmental stress? Szasz does accept the possibility that unidentified brain disease can cause issues with behaviour, such as neurosyphilis or even a brain tumour etc, but when found the treatment is moved from psychiatry to neurology or another scientific medical speciality. Also note that Szasz is not an anti-psychiatrist (as his book 'Anti-Psychiatry -Quackery Squared' reveals) but is only against coercion and the use of the 'insanity' defence in law. Hamilton, you may be 'dumbfounded' but to me your comments are less founded in science and more er.... ignorant?
 * If you don't know that mental disorders are biological in origin, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This is a well accepted fact that pretty much only cranks and Szasz deny.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * " but the mind is not a physical thing and therefore cannot be subject to scientific observation." I'm pretty sure I'm talking with you now. I'm pretty sure this constitutes indirect observation of your mind, and I can do science based on these observations. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What science can you perform? How you do know if I am even telling you the truth of what I think? I may just be provoking an argument. You must live in a cave and look at shadows. Ok. Tell me of your scientific findings. Just one hypothesis will do. --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Name one biological test used to diagnose a mental illness then. The fact is there is not one. You think that Tom Insel is also a crank then? The fact is that no such test exists. Unlike science based medicine, for all of the 300+ defined mental illnesses not one objective biological test is carried out. Not one. If you think there is then simply name one. It must be simple for you or are you just simple?
 * You do know that we can confirm pretty much every mental disorder with one of a number of brain imagining techniques, right? And what in the name of god does Tom Insel have to do with anything? Considering his work has been on things like the relationship between neurotransmitters and social behavior, I have this hard time imagining that he's the same camp as you, crying about mental disorders are some scam being perpetuated by the psychiatric/psychological Illuminati.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Insel has been the director of the NIMH since 2002. A recent quote of his “We don’t talk much about this,” he said, but when it comes to mental illnesses, psychiatrists lag far behind their colleagues in other specialties. “Diagnosis is by observation, detection is late, prediction is poor. Etiology is unknown, prevention is undeveloped. Therapy is by trial-and-error. We have no cures, no vaccines. Prevalence has not decreased. Mortality has not decreased.” A sure sign of a pseudoscience is lack of progress. There has been no progress in psychiatry for 150 years. So you are wrong I am afraid. There is no mental disorder that can be diagnosed with imaging techniques. There has been much speculation and a fantastic amount of research over the past 50 years but the end product is a big fat zero. Nothing. There are no biological markers and no clinical scientific test for any of the 300+ mental illnesses. I do not know where you are getting this view from but I suspect you are just making it up. You have made a massive claim. Now back up your claim with evidence. Just give a few examples of replicated research and evidence of imaging used in clinical setting. You know very little but think you know a lot. D-K effect in action?
 * What Insel said is that we aren't as developed as we would want to be, not that no progress has been made. And since you could look at a thousand MRI's from people not diagnosed with a mental disorder and see that they're all very similar, and then compare that to an MRI of a person with (for example) Major Depression, you can easily go "hmmm, this person's MRI is very different. I suspect that this person has something wrong with them". And I'm going to again suggest you take an Intro to Psych course.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You continue to talk complete and utter tripe. Where is your evidence? You cannot provide because you have none and you cannot find it. Are you a schoolboy? If so I suggest you put away your playstation and finish your homework. Then go clean up your room.
 * Very classy argumentum ad cellarium. Scarlet A.pngpathetic silverbrain.png 10:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was quite pleased with it myself. Unfortunately Mr Logic/Empricism (sic) refuses to provide any empirical evidence for his stance whilst at the same time advising I take an Intro to a Psych course, although I have spent many years involved within psychiatry. Of course this type of 'argumentum ad cellarium' from him seems acceptable to the moderators here. A case of double standards I feel? No?


 * Dr. Thomas Szasz 1920-2012 R.I.P

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/11/thomas-s-szasz-relentless-freedom-fighte

--Dirk Steele (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A tribute to Dr. Szasz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZgsxI3ZouU --Dirk Steele (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LoSgdpHnUk Thomas Szasz will be missed. There is none with the intellect to take his place. Dirk Steele (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=2196 Szasz is being proved correct. The cause of 'mental illness is psychosocial problems caused by social issues - nothing to do with disease. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Szasz - 'People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates.' Join the Institute for the Extreme Individual today. (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_szasz.html  Dirk Steele (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz has died from a fall. A true genius. One person which you sheeple will never understand. RIP. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So now that Ben Goldyprat says the same thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihooFXrGBM0 Dirk Steele (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When I started this thread Dr Szasz still lived. There is no-one who can replace him. --Dirk Steele (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, intelligence is defined by agreeing with some guy over a specific question? Quick, someone tell Mensa! :D --ZooGuard (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah no-one mentions Darwin or Einstein on this forum do they eh? The mind is actually a concept not a physical object. Can you state how a concept can suffer from a disease?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERybY9m_5h4 Dirk Steele (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And, of course, for the benefit of all on this site. Szasz never said that mental illness did not exist or was a fiction. His book was called 'The Myth of Mental Illness. Szasz used the academic definition of the word 'myth'. A myth is not a 'fiction' - i.e. to deny that 'it' exists,and a quote from Gilbert Ryle is pertinent here; "A myth is of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms belonging to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to reallocate them." This has caused much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Szasz's position. Unfortunately, this site seems to be monitored by those who do not understand the exact meaning of words. --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Szasz graduated with an honours degree in Physics before he embarked on a medical career to become an M.D. How many of his critics can claim the same? I am currently reading Szasz's book Ceremonial Chemistry. A work of genius I think. Has anyone here read any Szasz? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For anyone here that might to learn something about Szasz (obviously no-one on this forum) this is a good place to start. http://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/thomas-szasz

Dirk Steele (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone read 'Our Right to Drugs' or 'Ceremonial Chemistry' by Szasz? The State controls our bodies and what we can ingest. It therefore has legal control of our mind. Does anyone object? Dirk Steele (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Szasz did not die from a fall. His death, as was his life, was the result of his utmost integrity. http://www.szasz.com/szaszdeath.htm

'It takes an iconoclast with temerity and acumen to illuminate how unexamined myths and metaphors insidiously determine prevailing norms---norms considered unassailable and sacrosanct by the prevailing medical/legal system. For decades, Thomas Szasz has publicly challenged the excesses that obscure reason.' Dirk Steele (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)