Forum:The new inquisition

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This site seems to have been taken over by ignorant 'anonymous' young teens who are anti scientology (wow how cool)(and probably anti jew as well), who are censoring any rational debate regarding certain topics.. mainly my interest in psychiatry being a pseudoscience. Within science the prevailing view, accepted by Szasz and others, is that the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing. The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery. Psychiatry is akin to 'mind reading', astrology (labeling people into categories) and makes full use of the Forer effect. The medicalisation of deviance and misbehaviour (as proscribed by authority) is the erroneous belief in psychiatry. The ideology that all human brains need to be identical is a totalitarian philosophy, (eugenics) and probably a primate instinct, that has no place within science. Please can you stop censoring me by multiple bans/undoes and at least join the debate. Otherwise this site is no different from the creationist shit you eschew. I only joined this site because it was stated that the scientific method was the only pathway to 'truth' but those I have encountered are just as ideologically motivated as the intelligent design crowd. Thanks. — Unsigned, by: Dirk Steele / talk / contribs

Thats nice. Feel free to leave if you find this site and it's users lacking. --Mikal Harass Follow 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with being anti-scientology? Are you merely quibbling about the label "illness" or are you denying that there are groups of people that exhibit similar symptoms behaviourally, cognitively and physically that they consider adverse to their well being? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Being an atheist in the USA is probably adverse to their well being. Is this a mental illness?
I do not think there is anything wrong with being anti-scientology or anti-christian or anti-muslim even though I do not subscibe to these ideas. I also do not think it is my job to force those that take comfort in their religion to take my view. As long as the religion does not force their views in state authorities and institutions etc upon me. I understand that many consider their 'behaviour' to be adverse to their well being. Some of my behaviour is too. Homosexuality was once adverse to those beings 'well being' (I hope you can see the metaphors used here). It was considered a mental disease (and still is by some). You will have to explain further your view about negative effects regarding 'behaviourally, cognitively and physically' (sic) disadvantages of the 'mental' patients. I regard biodiversity as an advantage not a handicap. --Dirk Steele (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So the schizophrenic that plagued by fears, delusions, and hallucinations, that is unable to manage goal-directed behaviour and is so plagued by anhedonia that they can not have anything approaching a normal life. We are not even talking job/house/wife, we are talking often basic things like being able to feed oneself. This is merely biodiversity and an evolutionarily adaptive state? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
'goal-directed behaviour'. Toward what? Fitting in with society? Explain this please. A 'normal life'? What is that? What is the main reason why people cannot 'feed oneself'? Is this due to a biological disease? Where is the evidence? Is it a mental illness or an environmental/societal issue? Please let me know your thoughts.
@trent, dont bother, he wont care--Mikal Harass Follow 01:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Goal-directed behavior has a very specific definition, mostly dating back to animal research in stimulus/response paradigms. It is highly disrupted in many patients with sever schizophrenia. Many hardcore patients, with out treatment, are so unable to process reality from delusion, are so afflicted with damage to the motivational centers of the brain, that they reach a state of catatonia which could lead to starving to death if ignored. Sound adaptive to you? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You will have to define what you mean by 'delusion' and 'reality'. It would appear to me that these are social and cultural constructs and not scientific. I think 'creationists' are delusional but only a couple of hundred years ago this idea was considered to be true 'reality'. Can you cite any scientific reference that schizophrenia is related to damage to the 'motivational centers of the brain'. Where are these? Your definition of schizophrenia is also lacking - where have you read that it is exhibited by 'a state of catatonia which could lead to starving to death if ignored.' Please cite your references. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Define reality vs delusion"? "Reality is a social and cultural construct and not scientific"? My ass. You cannot be serious, and this constitutes trolling, or else you are so far removed from what I consider sane that I cannot have a meaningful conversation with you. I may reconsider this decision if you specifically apologize for being an ass for writing that in apparent seriousness. My time is precious, and I have better things to do than try to have a conversation with a nihilist post-modernist. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not a post-modernist. Just another insult. I believe that the scientific method is our only way to uncover the reality of the physical universe. But when one starts to attempt to define the mind, our desires, our goals etc then I believe that these are cultural human primate constructs. Even our senses are false and sight, hearing, taste, touch, are not reality but are a result of our evolutionary inheritance. Thus they are not scientific but merely constructs of our phenotype. And if you use the word 'nihilist' do you refer to the definition as defined by Neitzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus or Wittgenstein? Or someone else? Please explain. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you incapable of properly indenting your replies? I just fixed another one of yours. Look dude. People have desires. If you're not going to accept the well-formed-ness of that sentence, then we cannot and will not have conversations, because I am not going to pander to your philosophical word games. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
See here is the problem you pontificate about a subject which you obviously have zero professional training in. You have no knowledge of the field, the concepts, the vocabulary or the research. In order to engage you in a conversation about this topic I would have to spend a considerable amount of time teaching you the basics. I haven't even touched the main thrust of my argument but if you lack even the most basic conceptual framework the energy/reward just isn't worth it. For example, catatonia is defined primarily as a symptom of schizophrenia. I am not going to bother citing original research as I assume you likely don't have access to it, or the background to intelligently and critically examine it. Instead how about the Mayo Clinic summary? I have got extensive evidence showing biophysical relationship between the brain and negative symptomatology. ((Citation please or just 'hot air' posturing? --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC))) In fact, hot off the presses I have recently finished an analysis of fMRI data on schizophrenics vs. healthy controls showing some fascinating differences in vascular compliance measurable by parameter estimation of the post-stimulus response in the haemodynamic response function. We can link this vascular compliance failure directly to symptoms of schizophrenia showing a link from cognition, behaviour and physiology all rolled into one. This is only one minor example of research I am specifically involved in. The field is ample, and you have not even bothered looking at it before arm chair philosophizing, and poorly at that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Pure obfuscation. It took me a little while of internet searching to understanding what you are talking about... but why not state this in ordinary English? What are you trying to hide? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Check this out then. A 'schizophrenic'? Will you 'examine' these people in your groundbreaking study? Against what 'control'? Please can you explain yourself. You are very silent now... nothing to contribute? I think you have just been found out as a complete fake mate. Yes? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC) What?? This 'clinic' that deals with the morality of teen sex as a medical condition? What planet are you from? --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
'catatonia is defined primarily as a symptom of schizophrenia.' I know this fact. But if you read what I actually said I questioned the fact that so many schizophrenics die from starvation. Does this actually happen? How many do you know of? So... Anders Breivik is defined by some psychiatrists as a schizophrenic - suffering from catatonia. Other psychiatrists have defined him as sane. There is absolutely no agreement on who is or is not insane (because there are no scientific objective biological markers) So in your research how do you reach the definition of those who are schizophrenic and your controls. I would be interested in your answer here. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Research it on your own, meta studies are good places to start. As for your example totally meaningless. One, most of the diagnosis is being done either by people with no access to the patient just as paid media consultants, or as paid consultants for legal teams. Also you don't validate or invalidate a diagnostic criteria by agreement of its application in a single individual. Like any categorization system your goal is to have general agreement most of time. Are there some doctors that will always disagree? Sure. Are there some patients that are particularly difficult to assign? Sure. That's what the central limit theory is all about. Catch the first couple standard deviations and its a success. I am really not interested in playing this Gish Gallop game with you though. If you want to play we have to set some reasonable rules of discussion. What you need to do is give me an example of specific data you would accept as invalidating your arm chair hypothesizing. Just a basic description akin to "if you can show me a case of Y being linked to some observation Z that would invalidate my idea." Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Point one. Not true. Breivik's psychiatrists had months to interview him. The fact is that psychiatry cannot agree. I presume you are familiar with the kappa test scores for the field trials of the DSM 5. Are you? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it is too late to say that I do not have to be a professional homeopath to understand that it is a pseudoscience. Couple of things that interest me in your study. One is, since the definition of schizophrenia is very changable over time how have you determined those within your group? The meta-study you quote concludes that schizophrenia is a number of different diseases not just one. How will you differentiate? Secondly, since it is known that antipsychotic drugs actually cause symptoms - shuffled gate, tardive akathesia and dyskinesia and even brain damage which then have become symptoms of the 'disease',- how do you install and manage controls here? I would accept your finding if there is an empirical scientific observation which then can be used for a clinical diagnosis. How's that? (Sorry for the previous bout of sound and fury signifying my twatflapness.) --Dirk Steele (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The inability to answer is significant. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

'Also you don't validate or invalidate a diagnostic criteria by agreement of its application in a single individual. ' You are joking here surely? A broken leg disorder or lung cancer is not defined by 'agreement of its application in a single individual.' --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

'Are there some doctors that will always disagree? Sure.' Rubbish. Scientific medical doctors do not disagree whether someone has a cancer, a broken leg, diabetes, the flu, chicken pox, etc etc because these are all subject to an empirical measurement. I grant there may be areas where etiology is unknown and speculative but I bet you a million quid that I can always mimic or pretend to have a 'mental illness' whereas I cannot pretend to have a physical disease. Oh my poor bad back! So how have you differentiated your schizophrenic patients from your controls given that psychiatry cannot differentiate? See How have you accommodated this view in your research? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is why no one ever gets a second opinion. My state's former senator Pete Domenici would not be a "former" senator if diagnosis in medicine was perfect. The lost chance doctrine in malpractice lawsuits would have no need to exist. Any diagnostic criteria works on the bell curve. Anyway, not much further to discuss till you provide me with what I asked. Please outline data that would disprove your hypothesis. We can continue this conversation when you have provided a specific example. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I am reading through the meta studies you might want to have a read of this as an example of the position of the British Psychological Assoc. Any thoughts? --Dirk Steele (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If you understood the scientific method you would know that I cannot disprove a negative. I cannot prove that God does not exist. It is you that make the claim that have to show empirical evidence. But maybe you could outline data that would disprove your doctorate hypothesis and maybe we could discuss that. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Are you are too 'thick' to understand. I am a bi-polar flapwit. Can you prove it using science? No. It is not a subject that can be falsified. It is therefore a pseudo science. The fact that you think you have produced evidence of mental illness and obviously are in line for the Nobel prize!!! shows you suffer from a delusion. Probably schizophrenia? You know... grandiosity and a narcissistic personality disorder. But you are just a person with agnosia. You know.. the D-K shit. Bah! You are too ignorant to even have a debate with. --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your like some sort of weird John A. Davison remix, complete with the inability to handle things like thread structure. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Er.. do you mean to say "you're" rather than your? Do you even know the english language? Ok.. thread structure is more important to you than intellectual rational ideas.. and you cannot even take the time to answer my easy 'difficult' questions. Jeez. What a total arsewank you are. Keep posting and give us all a fuch=king giggle. We need such arsewits in this time of moronic stupidity. Keep your (you're) chin up mate! Jeez A few peas short of a casserole.......Dirk Steele (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you stupid? Please outline data that would disprove your hypothesis that there is a God. We can continue this conversation when you have provided a specific example. Ha! The fact you are a 'neuroscientist' with no idea of the concept of science makes me a scared little boy. Maybe a little mad. But the fact that you continue to ignore my most diffi-cult questions makes you no better than a creationist. You do not have the intellect to abrogate my scientific challenge. Do you? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)--Dirk Steele (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
So you admit that what you have proposed here is unfalsifiable. You keep using the term "science" it doesn't mean what you think it means. Anyway, you have clearly demonstrated your just another internet crank. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
As explained earlier, the scientific method requires that those that make the claim, of God existing or psychiatry as a science have to provide evidence. Have you read any Karl Popper? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"In fact, hot off the presses I have recently finished an analysis of fMRI data on schizophrenics vs. healthy controls showing some fascinating differences' I await your analysis with interest. If, and only if your paper stands up to scientific peer review and replication, I will accept the results. If your research is accepted regarding the vascular compliance and the haemodynamic response then what will the treatment be? Who will provide it? Psychiatrists? Or another medical speciality? --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a few steps in between basic research and "treatment." Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
But you must have a little idea about what the treatment could be. Otherwise what is the point of your research?--Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You evade the question very well. If your hypothesis is true then schizophrenia is not a 'mental illness' and therefore will not be treated by psychiatry? True or not? I await with bated breath the nobel prize that is due to you --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You evade the question again. Why? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Because your question reveals such a fundamental gap in understanding on the topic its a waste of time. I outlined above what you need to provide for this conversation to go anywhere, at the moment your in full crank territory. You can start digging yourself out of this whole be providing a falsifiable theory, or not. But I am not wasting time with a crank hell bent on ignorance. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You may call me a crank but you have not given one iota of scientific evidence to demonstrate this. Only argumentum ad hominem. I still await any scientific evidence to back up your views. I only see absence of argument. Come on guys... rise to the challenge. eh? --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha! You almost have made me piss my pants with incredulity. Why not just answer the simple question I asked? Because you cannot? You are a pathetic tosspot and anyone who reads what you have written here must realise this. Oh and I look forward to your research paper. Any chance of an advance copy? No I thought not... --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your dancing on a stage with no audience mate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well you are still here! 'Your dancing! But despite your aspirations to being a nobel prize winner you cannot even differentiate in english grammar between the words 'your' and 'you're'. I look forward to reading you're (sic) groundbreaking research paper. I love comedy. It is so funny! you twatflaplicker, Ha! --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"[...] the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing. The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery." What is this... I don't even... You're welcome to your unfalsifiable scientifically vacuous claim that "the mind does not exist". Humans obviously have behaviors, desires, wants, goals, reasoning capabilities, and so on. Obviously some humans have undesirable qualities in their behaviors, desires, wants, goals, reasoning capabilities, etc. That seems like a pretty simply definition of "mental illness" that is scientifically accurate and sound, even by your extreme world view. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You miss the point. Humans obviously have undesirable qualities in their behaviours, desires, wants, goals etc but then to say that these issues are the result of a medical disease is quackery. How can one have a disease of desire and then be 'treated' by 'medication'. This is not science. It is complete nonsense. --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do really really care. Otherwise I would not bother to post. I care that people dismiss science for a ludicrous belief. If we ignore this we are doomed. And I have not engaged with anyone on this site yet who is willing to engage in a scientific debate. Not one. That worries me. And it should worry you too. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Where you got off track[edit]

I would say that your original point is pretty good and well true, but it hinges on a key point that is simply false:

"Within science the prevailing view, accepted by Szasz and others, is that the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing."

This is true.

"The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery."

This is not true. Psychiatry/Psychology/Neuroscience in general does not say that mental disorders are conditions of the mind, but of the brain. The brain, being a physical object which is affected by numerous hormones, neurotransmitters, and stimuli can get ill. That is where you fail.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Neurology is the medical speciality that deals with diseases of the brain. Psychiatry deals with disease of the mind. Although psychiatrists like to think they are neurologists there is no scientific evidence of any biological markers to determine a mental illness. Read the DSM. It is a list of behaviours which are not acceptable to the authorities within society. And if, as Szasz points out, there is evidence of a physical defect such as happened with epilepsy and neurosyphilis, it is removed from psychiatry into a proper medical speciality. You will also have to explain why the concept of 'mental illness' or 'mental hygiene' exists. Why are these not just termed 'brain' diseases? There is a reason why and it may be prudent to take a minute to consider and examine this fact. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Morton's demon Also seriously? You think everyone who disagrees with you is from the antiscientology branch of Anon and you think they're antisemite? I'm too sober for this shit. Frullic (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No. I am suggesting that the persecution of those that have strange beliefs might also apply to those who believe that they are God's chosen people'. And yes... I agree that you are too sober. Therefore... Drink!! Gurls!! --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well you have not seen all the comments I get about me being in league with scientology and the CCHR. It gets tiresome especially when I have spent time updating pages which then get undone by some infant who has a beef against scientology. Look at the mental illness denial page here to see what rubbish is spouted. Hubbard has absolutely no academic credibility within 'anti-psychiatry' and is not even mentioned on the Wikipedia site. But here... Dirk Steele (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you expect to get far in any debate when you spend most of your time insulting the other side or..?--Mikal Harass Follow 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I only insult when I am insulted first. Those here must realise that if they want to resort to this tactic I will reciprocate in kind. If anyone would like to debate with rational arguments they will find I am quite civil in return. You may like to read Steven Novella pathetic attempts to call me a troll becaused I questioned his promotion of electro convulsive therapy here which led to Since he is, by the standards of or even, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, he eventually had to ban me or lose the debate in front of his adoring acolytes. Which was not good for his 'business'. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Go, banana! --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief[edit]

Dirk, you are demanding evidence which has already been provided for you. Trent has specifically told you where to go to find what you are asking for. The way you are posting is so horrible I could only figure out what was happening by going to the fossil record. This is basically always a bad thing.

Ok I could read the 5000 published studies on Pubmed that prove the efficiacy of homeopathetic medicine. Or the thousands on acupuncture or holistic medicine. Do I believe them all? No. Do you? Why not?

Once upon a time I suggested that you might want to take some basic course work in psychology/psychiatry before arguing about what the science is and is not. Most of what you're saying does not happen in the mental health field is explained in literally the first day of an introduction to abnormal psychology course. That you think you somehow know better then I do about mental health is fine, I'll admit the most I've done is underclassman courses in the subject, but Trent is wrapping up a doctoral degree. I can pretty much guarantee you that he knows more about the subject then just about anyone here, and since you apparently need basic terms explained to you, you definitely don't know as much about it as him.

My 30 years of experience of psychiatry and I do not know as much as Trent?? Explain where I fall short. I bet you 100 quid I know more than him and if you would like this demonstrated then you could at least answer the questions I pose rather than ignore them. --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You have admitted to having ODD, which is a condition only minors are diagnosed with, and have a demonstrated lack of understanding of basic terms of art. I would doubt your parents have even known each other for 30 years.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes it true that my father died in 1974 when I was 17 and that my parents did not therefore actually know each other for 30 years. But when are you going to stop the pathetic insults and respond to my arguments. ODD is not a condition only minors are diagnosed with. Again you show your total ignorance Dirk Steele (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
An interesting paper (not read it all yet tho) on economics, mental illness and Thomas Szasz. User Hamilton may enjoy. --Dirk Steele (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
psychology is not the same as psychiatry. If you look closely... the letters used are a little bit different. This means they might have a different meaning. You must examine those letters after the first five to be able to differentiate meaning in words. Comprende? --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, for your own sake, take a few weeks off from coming here, take some basic courses in the subject, and come back anew. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What basic courses have you taken. Scientific citations are welcome. --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You think psychiatry is pseudoscience, but not psychology? o.O Also, intro to psych, ab psych, social psych, behavior modification. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You think psychiatry is the same subject as psychology? Let me give you a little clue. The words, although they may seem similar, have different letters. If you look closely, after the first five then the letters are not exactly the same. Can you see this? Why is this you may ask! Probably because they mean different things! Are you some duncefuckwot? --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Psychiatry is realistically a specialization of psychology. And Psychologists work with mental disorders as much as psychiatrists. the major difference is that psychiatrists can prescribe medication and tend to focus on the biological components of mental disorders, while psychologists focus on the environmental. They aren't the same but if you think psychiatry is pseudoscience because mental disorders are not real, but do not think that psychology is pseudoscience, well, we're getting back to the part where I think you have no idea what you're talking about.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Psychiatry is a medical discipline that attempts to treat illness of the mind. Much like scientific medicine which will utilise our findings in biology, it may 'try' to incorporate psychology (but in my view it does not use the latest scientific findings within psychology and has no philisophical interest in the 'mind' itself). In fact the greatest criticism of psychiatry (brain disease) comes from psychologists as well as sociologists - Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. The DSM-5 describes misbehaviours ( as a disease. This is scientific nonsense. As Robert Sapolsky points out our brains process moral disgust and disease disgust in the same manner using the same part of the brain. ( and his Stanford lectures are a good start). However moral disgust is metaphorical and thus 'mental disease' is also a metaphor and not a literal physical thing. It is an idea. I do not understand why rational people here do not realise this fact and continue to ridicule this idea. --Dirk Steele (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK will do. Of course those that know me well realise I am just an old drunk addicted to my whisky and prone to insane profanity in text as much as a tourette suffering in speech. Anyways... I have started to look at the mega study as advised and will start a new discussion on it. A few things jump out immediately. One is the strange fact that immigrants (of all countries) are far more likely to be disagnosed with schizophrenia. In the UK it is african blacks (although the white Irish seem to escape). The actual definition of Schizophrenia has changed over the past 100 years from Kraeplin and Bleuler (when mental hospitals were filled with those suffering from tertiary neurosyphilis), from catatonia to 'split personality - to a disease suffered by housewives in the 1950s. is a good place to start. Rosenhan - demonstrated that psychiatrists could not define who was sane or not and even now they are unable to agree whether such characters as Anders Breivik or even the Unabomber are schizophrenic or not. Does this uncertainty exist in scientific medicine to such a level? There have also been thousands of studies to attempt to define the pathology/etiology in biological terms, brain structure, brain chemical/dopamine or even genetic (see All of which have failed to pinpoint any particular biological marker. As I have mentioned before even Tom Insel, director of the NIMH has lamented the total failures despite huge research for the last 100 years. ( Read the detail here So let us see the conclusion of the metastudy - ' it is almost certain that our construct of schizophrenia encompasses not one but several diseases, precise delineation of the constellation of distinct “individual diseases” that are part of this entity is not possible at present. We utilize the disease model because of the clarity it provides and its heuristic value.'

This is a joke conclusion. The most obvious occam's razor conclusion from all of these papers is that schizophrenia is a cultural construct and not a real 'disease'. Anyway, I will read the papers in detail and start a separate thread. Any thoughts? (apart from the usual fuck off fuckwit - you are a scientology crank and have no professional knowledge of what you are talking about.) (I agree about the fuckwit part though... ) --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, I'm not joining in the discussion but here's an interesting podcast for you regarding schizophrenia, by Professor Robin Murray. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 19:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks will take a listen. At the mo I am watching evil at work. ;-) Dirk Steele (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Genghis. I have listened to this now and I think I have very little disagreement with Professor Robin Murray's views. Of course he is much less of a twat than I am. Cheers! --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh.. and a plug for my favourite neuroscientist blogger (No it is not Steven Novella!).

Go, banana! --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 19:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

'To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.' To hide by self censorship when you think others may disapprove is so much worse...'. Yes Ralph... you have a pathetic name. Deal with it.--Dirk Steele (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You either have the courage of your convictions or else you are a little timid pussy. From your grubby origins you may yet grow up to be a beautiful butterfly... but I doubt it.. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be understood is that 'science' itself is subject to ideological/belief systems of the prevailing authority. Bruno/Copernicus for example were persecuted. So the scientific endeavour that is approved is subject to and constrained by the culture/society/institutions that want to maintain the status quo. Even to get the money to research is restricted. I am not sure that RationalWiki has taken these views into account but am happy to be corrected. The history of scientific progress shows how 'progress' is inhibited. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Any examination of the last 150 years of psychiatry has shown that it's main concern is with behaviour that is 'anti' the cultural 'norms' of the time. Draptomania, Masturbatory insanity, Hysteria, Homosexuality are all examples of this. Today, the concerns are for ADHD schoolchildren, those that are criminal and violent, who have 'delusions' like atheists or who question authority, Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Or those who take drugs, who eat too much or too little, or who want sex too much or too little etc. The DSM 5 which defines 'mental illness' is a list of disapproved behaviour. That is all. What was once in the religious age defined as a sin is now defined, in the therapeutic state, as a brain disease. This is pure pseudoscience. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you still talking to this idiot?[edit]

Why are you still talking to this idiot? Until he agrees with us that "I have a desire for a cup of coke" is well-formed and meaningful, there's no point in discussing anything with him, ever. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So I would use this video to validate my points about the new inquisition. Skeptic forum 4

It seems to me that the skeptic movement has become a secular religious activity. There are certain topics - called by skeptics as denialism and any argument against the prevailing viewpoint is dismissed without mercy. If you view the video (not many can be bothered) you can see the evangelical art at work. The 'sinner' confesses sins in order to validate in-group comfort. (And also invalidate out-group ideas). The use of tearful emotional pleas help strengthen the group solidarity. The use of the word 'denialism' is as profound as the historical use of the word 'heretic'. And it is used against particular topics.. mental illness denial and the 'environment' are two such issues. So i do see this Rationalwiki as a religious movement. Any outsider is immediately castigated and banned. Groupthink must endure. Science is replaced by metaphorical belief. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FINALLY, this thread is done. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha! How about Or is this shit too? Dirk Steele (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok but finally to answer where I go wrong - as specified above that mental disease is really brain disease. Neurology is the medical speciality dealing with brain injury or disease. The first thing that they do is to actually LOOK at the brain via scans etc. In the same way other scientific medical disciplines also take tests, x-rays, scans et all. Psychiatry may claim that mental illness is a brain disease but the fact is the one thing they never do is look at or examine the brain!! This is preposterous. Psychiatry is akin to astrology whereby my stubborn behaviour means I must be Taurus. At least astrology uses one fact, namely date of birth, which is one more than psychiatry uses. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience, an ideology, a secular religion and a belief system. The fact that this view is promoted by Rationalwiki who see anyone as 'anti-psychiatry' as a heretical 'denier' means it too has an unscientific ideological bent. Also the cultural differences in mental 'disease' can be examined here to demonstrate the unscientific nature of psychiatry. But ok. No debate possible here. Thread closed (but please read it anyway!). To be honest I never expected any other outcome but for the vast majority here to ridicule me. Dirk Steele (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1 in 4 in the USA have a mental illness now. The claim is that most are undiagnosed. Everyone now has this disease? Pseudoscience rules. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have been blocked again. Thankfully for only 30 minutes. But let me explain my little secret. On my medical records I am described as a schizophrenic. That I have an 'obsession' with quantum physics ( I read a lot of the ideas of Richard Feynman, Hugh Everett, Alan Turin, Ed Fredkin, David Deutch et all). Also I have an 'obsession' with evolutionary psychology.. W.D Hamilton, E O Wilson, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett etc. Of course my schizophrenia extends to my obsession with music ( I make my living from composing) ... yet I suffer from a brain disease? How many of you believe in my medical diagnosis ? Can you start a poll? I feel like an atheist on a creationist forum. ..... RationalWiki is irrational. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)