A philosophical and scientific refutation of 'mental illness'

[CodexVeritas]

author : Kevin Burke
email removed by moderator

“The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth”.-- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

“ Truth has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors -- power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions.” –John Bryant

In the modern West there is a stifling lack of freedom, at least in many of the nations, and especially in the so called exemplar of Democracy and freedom, in the West, that represents it the most, currently, as an empire : America. America is full of hypocrisy but I will not digress too far into the full depth of its hypocrisy rather than to state while America is running around ostensibly trying to setup Democracy for other nations , like Iraq, America, in and of itself, is not even a Democracy or a Republic but an oligarchy (although, its citizens do enjoy some features of Democratic government). The American political system is a complete sham since the differences between the Republicans and Democrats are superficial since both represent big government and since there is no proportional representation system , like in parts of Europe, there is a negative feedback loop which reinforces this two party tyranny. For simplicities sake I will call this statist tyranny a Hamiltonian-Hegelian hybrid. Under Hegelianism truth follows theory rather than empirical truth where truth corresponds with the facts of reality. Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson but we live in Hamilton’s country now etc.. if we truly lived in Jeffersonian style freedom our lives would follow more under the system of him and also people like Locke and John Stuart Mill. Anyway, Hegel thought he reckoned the Noumenal realm but what he really did was spout metaphysical nonsense, according to Schopenhauer and one of his successors , known as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer had this to say on Hegel :

“What was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fichte was the first to grasp and make use of this privilege; Schelling at best equalled him in this, and a host of hungry scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel...”

I realize the irony of using a Schopenhauer quote that is not critical of ‘madhouses’ but the overall message is too important to leave out. I will not quote , right here, but I will in just a bit , Wittgenstein because it is generally known among the educated that his philosophy would show Hegel’s philosophy to be nonsense since Wittgenstein’s philosophy is an entire critique of such language. Anyway, the Hegelian statist does not tolerate idiosyncratic mindsets that produce free thoughts and consequently it is also an anti-science ideology ,too, among other things. So now that we cleared that up that sets the scaffolding or context for my criticism which will follow in the libertarian or classical liberal vain and which should be protected under the first amendment of the United States. Wittgenstein only published one work in his lifetime although he would later pick up a new method I believe his first work was more objectively pure and the latter was not even finished and what was finished of it I choose not to take as profoundly as the first work, therefore, I find the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to be more authoritative. Bertrand Russell said of Wittgenstein’s later work , the Blue and Brown books, the following : “It seems to concern itself, not with the world and our relation , but only with the different ways in which silly people can say silly things. If this is all that philosophy has to offer, I cannot think that it is a worthy subject of study..." So as Wittgenstein believed that philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts I will quote from the Tractatus ,although, Wittgenstein would forbid such as ‘senseless’, if only for the reason that it might spur you on to read it in context and then ‘throw away’ the proverbial ‘ladder’ so you may see the world as it really is as Wittgenstein so famously put it , in the former and now the latter : “The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e., propositions of natural science - i.e., something that has nothing to do with philosophy - and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.” Also, it is worth noting that Stephen Hawking in his book “The Grand Design” stated that philosophy has failed to keep up with science so is now obsolete.

Now the stage is set for my criticism of the whole concept of ‘mental illness’. Mental illness is a social construction of the Neolithic humans who dominate the geopolitical North. Neolithic humans use it as a means to enforce their status quo social stasis and force conformity on people they call eccentrics. Many of these people are actually geniuses who they try to force mental torpor upon via neuroleptics (some of which are neurotoxic). In doing this they not only impede their own group performance (from benefiting from potential new technologies and scientific methods created by the cognitive elite) but they severely impede the evolution of the cognitive elite. Even without these neuroleptics the Neolithic humans still impede the evolution of the elite while the elite group increases their performance. The humanistic sciences, such as psychiatry, have organized religious attributes and are not real sciences proper. That is because Neolithic humans have the ability to organize politically and religiously but they are incapable of doing real science. That is why we see the psychiatrist acts as kind of a shaman or a priest of sorts, it seems, and why Franz Boas was such an authoritative leader with ulterior ethnocentric Jewish motives. Boas effectively removed evolution from anthropology. However, Wittgenstein and Einstein, unlike Boas, had intelligence levels in the cognitive elite range so their science and philosophy (yes, I realize the scope here was about science but it applies more globally but I won't digress) were not tainted by any ulterior ethnocentric Jewish motives because they were not neolithic humans. Also, the biggest enemies of the cognitive elite are the smartest of the neolithic humans such as doctors and chemists etc.. so it is no surprise there seems to be a collusion between them to inflict malice, on the cognitive elite, with neuroleptics. So, the humanistic sciences are the Neolithic humans attempt to emulate or imitate the cognitive elite’s real science e.g. physics. For instance, there is confirmation bias in the social sciences, as well, as it is sometimes hard to keep social science and fiction apart since there is so much fiction in much of modern social science and so much social science in modern fiction. This is in high contrast to real sciences such as physics. Although, this may be changing to some degree in modern physics as George Ellis and Joseph Silk wrote in a controversial tract called : "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics," which criticized a seemingly new willingness of a minority of physicists to set aside experimental confirmation of some the newest cosmic theories. Anyhow, even if the latter is true physics still has a much higher fidelity for objective truth than the humanistic sciences and social sciences. Anyway, physics is the king of all sciences in that all sciences must obey its laws. The concept of the mind and hence ‘mental illness’ is metaphysical in nature and so is nonsensical according to physics and the philosophy of Wittgenstein. According to physics the mind is a nonsensical concept (the mind and brain are not synonymous) and therefore only neurology is a real science when it comes to this realm. All psychiatry’s ostensible claim to neurological links are by definition spurious as the whole concept is nonsensical to begin with. The latter is like trying to build a house on quicksand. Also, since mathematics is the queen of the sciences and can measure or reflect anything that exists in objective reality it is obvious that you can take someone’s brain out, on the autopsy table, and measure it but you cannot measure someone’s mind with mathematics and that is because the mind doesn’t’ exist in objective reality like the brain. Rather, the mind is an abstract concept, for the brain, that makes it easier for some humans to comprehend some higher functions of the brain. Anyway, mental illness does not exist : quod erat demonstrandum.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Phi for All
personal email removed

[pwagen]

Specifically, which mental illness are you talking about? There's quite the difference between for example depression and schizophrenia. Knowing which mental illness you think is non-existant would help in clarifying your position.

[Strange]

A philosophical and scientific refutation of 'mental illness'

 

It certainly wasn't scientific, as you presented no evidence. And it wasn't philosophical, unless you are redefining the word to mean rambling and incoherent.

 

Anyway, mental illness does not exist : quod erat demonstrandum.

 

And yet, many people are mentally ill. In some cases, these have clear physical causes, in others less so. Some are more or less treatable. But to deny their existence is, well ... mad.

[DrP]

My ex used to say the same thing... "mental illness isn't real - we are just what we are and get a label if we don't conform to western standards - they have it right in India where the 'different' are respected revered and helped". She also violently defended homeopathy and any kind of new age BS. She was put into a mental hospital under a section 5 months after we parted ways. Poor lass.

 

Some people will just believe whatever they want... back to her - she believed a video proof of a 'ghost' that was filmed in a local shop. The film was of a bag of sugar levitating off a shelf in an impossible way and falling to the ground. The local nutters were using this as absolute proof of the supernatural.... 1 month later I read in the paper that it was a hoax - neadless to say she did not believe it was a hoax even though I showed her the interview in the paper with the shop owner who admitted that it was a hoax and publicity stunt... she STILL was convinced that the interview with the shop owner was a cover up to hush the truth. She WAS mentally ill.

Edited September 24, 2015 by DrP

[Strange]

And it isn't just an issue of not conforming to some mythical "standard". After all, everyone is different and there are many people who I might consider "odd" but others would admire.

 

The problem is that, for some people, their mental problems are just that: problems that prevent them operating in the world. Perhaps because they are unable to tell what is real and what is hallucination/delusion. Or because they want to hurt/kill others or themselves.

 

Saying that these problems are not real is like saying that a broken leg or smallpox are not illnesses; they are just "differences". Why would we try and treat any injury or illness? Why not just say they are just symptoms of how "different" we all are? Because if we can help someone who is suffering (physically or mentally) then we should.

 

Of course, if they are not a danger to themselves or others, and they don't consider their "illness" to be a problem, then we can leave them be. For example, Oliver Sacks described one patient who had Tourette's but chose not to take the medication because it impaired his drum playing. Similarly, there are people who refuse treatment for physical illnesses because they prefer to put up with it than accept the alternative.

 

The OP is also pretty offensively racist so I am not inclined to take anything he says too seriously.

[Delta1212]

People who deny the existence of mental illness have never known someone who was seriously mentally ill.

[Strange]

In the modern West there is a stifling lack of freedom

 

Evidence? Do you feel stifled by your inability to post nonsense on science forums?

 

America is full of hypocrisy ... ... Schopenhauer had this to say on Hegel ... "

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

Also, it is worth noting that Stephen Hawking in his book “The Grand Design” stated that philosophy has failed to keep up with science so is now obsolete.

 

1. This is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

2. Hawking clearly knows nothing about philosophy and is wrong on this point.

 

 

Mental illness is a social construction of the Neolithic humans who dominate the geopolitical North.

 

1. What are "neolithic humans"?

2. What is the "geopolitical North"?

3. Why are humans outside the "geopolitical North" no neolithic?

4. How is their claimed neolithic status relevant?

 

Neolithic humans use it as a means to enforce their status quo social stasis and force conformity on people they call eccentrics.

 

So people who attempt to kill others and/or themselves are merely eccentric and should be left free to carry on as they wish.

 

Many of these people are actually geniuses

 

How many? What evidence is this based on?

 

The humanistic sciences, such as psychiatry, have organized religious attributes

 

Evidence?

 

That is because Neolithic humans have the ability to organize politically and religiously but they are incapable of doing real science.

 

And yet, you seem to admit that physics is "real science". So who is doing it?

 

with ulterior ethnocentric Jewish motives.

 

Please keep your antisemitic opinions out of it.

 

However, Wittgenstein and Einstein, unlike Boas, had intelligence levels in the cognitive elite range

 

Citation needed.

Also, what is the "cognitive elite range"? And who defines it?

 

not tainted by any ulterior ethnocentric Jewish motives

 

Please leave your racist views out of it.

 

because they were not neolithic humans.

 

What were they then? Aliens from the planet Xrag?

 

Also, the biggest enemies of the cognitive elite are the smartest of the neolithic humans such as doctors and chemists etc.

 

Who are the "cognitive elite"?

What evidence do you have that doctors and chemists are the "smartest of the neolithic humans"?

Why are doctors and chemists the enemies of the "cognitive elite"?

 

So, the humanistic sciences are the Neolithic humans attempt to emulate or imitate the cognitive elite’s real science e.g. physics.

 

Why do you say that cognitive elite's "real science" is physics?

 

For instance, there is confirmation bias in the social sciences

 

There is confirmation bias (or the potential for it is all science).

 

This is in high contrast to real sciences such as physics. Although, this may be changing to some degree in modern physics as George Ellis and Joseph Silk wrote in a controversial tract called : "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics," which criticized a seemingly new willingness of a minority of physicists to set aside experimental confirmation of some the newest cosmic theories.

 

This still has nothing to do with the subject of your thread.

 

Anyhow, even if the latter is true physics still has a much higher fidelity for objective truth

 

Your ignorance is showing. Science in general, including physics, has nothing to do with "objective truth". For that you need to turn to religion.

 

The concept of the mind and hence ‘mental illness’ is metaphysical in nature and so is nonsensical according to physics

 

It is not "nonsensical according to physics", it is just irrelevant. Physics has no more to say about the mind that it does about truth or beauty. Of course, physics can tell us a blot about the brain and, therefore, how the mind arises.

 

According to physics the mind is a nonsensical concept

 

Repeating a baseless assertion doesn't magically make it true. Sorry.

 

All psychiatry’s ostensible claim to neurological links are by definition spurious as the whole concept is nonsensical to begin with.

 

That is obviously not true as there are clear links between the mind and neurology. If you wish to claim an independent existence for the mind, perhaps you could show an example of someone able to function with no brain. As it is, your "by definition" is just another baseless assertion.

 

but you cannot measure someone’s mind with mathematics

 

So we can add experimental psychology to the long list of subjects that you are totally ignorant of?

 

quod erat demonstrandum.

 

That is not how you spell, "and that's my baseless opinion".

Edited September 24, 2015 by Strange

[Greg H.]

I have never, in all my life, had the displeasure of reading something so....distasteful.

 

Your baseless and vitriolic attack shows a basic lack of empathy at best, and at worst some severe emotional damage. This thread serves no point, as you are obvious here to soapbox, not discuss, and no amount of counter argument is likely to in any way change your mind about this drivel. As such, it has been reported for the being the detritus of rational thought that it is.

[swansont]

ulterior ethnocentric Jewish motives.

 

!

Moderator Note

The discussion needs to proceed without slurs of this (or similar) nature

[DrP]

Doesn't look like he's coming back anyway - he just had a chip on his shoulder through not really understanding things and wanted to rant - I doubt we'll see him again. He might be mental himself just like my ex gf who was spouting similar rubbish rubbish before her sectioning.

[swansont]

He might be mental himself just like my ex gf who was spouting similar rubbish rubbish before her sectioning.

!

Moderator Note

we can do without this, as well. Discuss the topic, not people.

[CodexVeritas]

 

It certainly wasn't scientific, as you presented no evidence. And it wasn't philosophical, unless you are redefining the word to mean rambling and incoherent.

 

 

And yet, many people are mentally ill. In some cases, these have clear physical causes, in others less so. Some are more or less treatable. But to deny their existence is, well ... mad.

 

Really, I think there is just a huge gap of knowledge between us. You seem to be specialized like an insect while I have a wider knowledge more like a polymath. I could be wrong but that is how it seems to me. What you call rambling and incoherent I call a deficit of knowledge on your part so you are seemingly incapable of understanding what I said. Bottom line is 1.) the mind and brain are not synonymous 2.) at best the 'mind' is a philosophical metaphysical concept and it is literally impossible for the mind to be a legitimate scientific concept since physics is the king of all sciences and 3.) mental illness is a myth. Now that I broke it down into easy to understand little kiddy chunks can you understand what I am saying now ? BTW, I'm not the first philosopher to claim that mental illness is a social construct the French philosopher Michel Foucalt preceded me. I argue differently with my own style though.

And it isn't just an issue of not conforming to some mythical "standard". After all, everyone is different and there are many people who I might consider "odd" but others would admire.

 

The problem is that, for some people, their mental problems are just that: problems that prevent them operating in the world. Perhaps because they are unable to tell what is real and what is hallucination/delusion. Or because they want to hurt/kill others or themselves.

 

Saying that these problems are not real is like saying that a broken leg or smallpox are not illnesses; they are just "differences". Why would we try and treat any injury or illness? Why not just say they are just symptoms of how "different" we all are? Because if we can help someone who is suffering (physically or mentally) then we should.

 

Of course, if they are not a danger to themselves or others, and they don't consider their "illness" to be a problem, then we can leave them be. For example, Oliver Sacks described one patient who had Tourette's but chose not to take the medication because it impaired his drum playing. Similarly, there are people who refuse treatment for physical illnesses because they prefer to put up with it than accept the alternative.

 

The OP is also pretty offensively racist so I am not inclined to take anything he says too seriously.

 

I never claimed that people do not have "problems in living" I merely claim that to label them 'mentally ill' or having a "psychiatric disorder" is not scientific since it is impossible for the mind to be a real scientific concept. The mind is part of the human sciences not the physical sciences e.g. physics and biology. I am also stating that the human sciences are not real sciences since they contain much more fiction than the natural sciences. The human sciences are not only different from the natural sciences they are in many ways its polar opposite.

 

 

The OP is also pretty offensively racist so I am not inclined to take anything he says too seriously."

 

Really Jews aren't ethnocentric ? Why aren't Jews proselytizing like the Jehovah's witnesses then ? And why are jews a matrileneal tribe then ? All neolithic humans show tendencies towards ethnocentrism it is just that Jews seem to exhibit this to the extreme of all the neolithic humans. Pointing out this praxeological observation may be an uncomfortable truth and it may be taboo but it does not automatically make me a racist. Also, callling me a racist is surely some form of the wider logical fallacy called the ad hominem is it not ? Anyway, this discussion is not suppose to digress to one about jews or racism or anything of that sort.

I have never, in all my life, had the displeasure of reading something so....distasteful.

 

Your baseless and vitriolic attack shows a basic lack of empathy at best, and at worst some severe emotional damage. This thread serves no point, as you are obvious here to soapbox, not discuss, and no amount of counter argument is likely to in any way change your mind about this drivel. As such, it has been reported for the being the detritus of rational thought that it is.

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Psychiatry-Science-Lies-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472889249&sr=8-1&keywords=psychiatry+the+science+of+lies

Edited September 3, 2016 by CodexVeritas

[Strange]

Bottom line is 1.) the mind and brain are not synonymous 2.) at best the 'mind' is a philosophical metaphysical concept and it is literally impossible for the mind to be a legitimate scientific concept since physics is the king of all sciences and 3.) mental illness is a myth.

 

 

 

As I said, long on assertions.Sort on evidence.

 

 

 

I never claimed that people do not have "problems in living" I merely claim that to label them 'mentally ill' or having a "psychiatric disorder" is not scientific since it is impossible for the mind to be a real scientific concept.

 

So you want to change the terminology. <shrug> That has happened before. We no longer call people "lunatics".

 

It sounds like we agree that people can have behavioural problems (is that OK?) that make life difficult for them and/or others. And that such behaviours, ultimately, arise in the brain.

 

You don't think that "mind" is a useful concept. I do, in fact I think it is unavoidable.

 

 

 

 

The mind is part of the human sciences not the physical sciences e.g. physics and biology. I am also stating that the human sciences are not real sciences since they contain much more fiction than the natural sciences. The human sciences are not only different from the natural sciences they are in many ways its polar opposite.

 

I have seen plenty of very scientific studies of the mind (and the brain), so that appears to be untrue.

 

But perhaps you mean something different by "scientific" than I do.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Strange

[CodexVeritas]

 

 

Evidence? Do you feel stifled by your inability to post nonsense on science forums?

 

The whole work Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus is senseless yet is one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century so what is your point ? Your point is that you don't understand philosophy ?

 

 

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

That you think it is irrelevant shows your lack of understanding of philosophy and politics and how they inter-relate with psychiatry in the modern state. You are just showing your ignorance.

 

 

 

1. This is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

2. Hawking clearly knows nothing about philosophy and is wrong on this point.

 

First is true the second maybe not. Anyway, it doesn't matter that the first is true because at worst that just makes the mind a philosophical concept , like it was back during Aristotle's time, rather than a scientific concept.

 

 

 

]1. What are "neolithic humans"?

 

]2. What is the "geopolitical North"?

3. Why are humans outside the "geopolitical North" no neolithic?

4. How is their claimed neolithic status relevant?

 

If you have to ask what the geopolitical north is then that sounds pretty ignorant.

 

Neolithic humans : 90-130 IQ

 

Paleotropical humans like 70-90 IQ roughly speaking

 

cognitive elite IQ 130-150 average roughly speaking

 

It is relevant because neolithic humans infect science with politics and religion and cannot do real science proper.

 

 

 

So people who attempt to kill others and/or themselves are merely eccentric and should be left free to carry on as they wish.

 

They should go to jail or prison for the first group and the latter group is a libertarian issue

 

 

 

 

 

And yet, you seem to admit that physics is "real science". So who is doing it?

 

Physicists have IQ's in the cognitive elite range, on average, and physics is the king of all sciences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who are the "cognitive elite"?

What evidence do you have that doctors and chemists are the "smartest of the neolithic humans"?

Why are doctors and chemists the enemies of the "cognitive elite"?

 

The average IQs of these groups. The smartest of the neolithic humans are enemies of the cognitive elite like the churchmen who persecuted Galileo.

 

 

Why do you say that cognitive elite's "real science" is physics?

 

Because physicists have the highest IQs of all scientists and all science must obey the laws of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your ignorance is showing. Science in general, including physics, has nothing to do with "objective truth". For that you need to turn to religion.

 

Religion is nothing more than a superstition that has been around long enough to become respectable. Neolithic humans are using psychiatry in a similar way to religion in the modern secular West.

 

 

 

It is not "nonsensical according to physics", it is just irrelevant. Physics has no more to say about the mind that it does about truth or beauty. Of course, physics can tell us a blot about the brain and, therefore, how the mind arises.

 

Its irrelevant because it is nonsensical in the context of physics and therefore it is nonsensical or irrelevant to all of science since physics is the king of all the other sciences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is obviously not true as there are clear links between the mind and neurology. If you wish to claim an independent existence for the mind, perhaps you could show an example of someone able to function with no brain. As it is, your "by definition" is just another baseless assertion.

 

The mind and the brain are not synonymous

 

 

 

So we can add experimental psychology to the long list of subjects that you are totally ignorant of?

 

I care nothing for the inferior neolithic human trash called the humanistic sciences even though I used the concept of IQ and IQ is not proof of mathematics encompassing the entire mythical 'mind'.

 

 

 

That is not how you spell, "and that's my baseless opinion"

 

You mean like your mentally retarded neolithic human opinion on religion ?

Edited September 3, 2016 by CodexVeritas

[Strange]

Neolithic humans : 90-130 IQ

 

Paleotropical humans like 70-90 IQ roughly speaking

 

cognitive elite IQ 130-150 average roughly speaking

 

The phrase "citation needed" comes to mind.

 

 

It is relevant because neolithic humans infect science with politics and religion and cannot do real science proper.

 

Any evidence for that? Or any of your claims?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Strange

[CodexVeritas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you want to change the terminology. <shrug> That has happened before. We no longer call people "lunatics".

 

It sounds like we agree that people can have behavioural problems (is that OK?) that make life difficult for them and/or others. And that such behaviours, ultimately, arise in the brain.

 

You don't think that "mind" is a useful concept. I do, in fact I think it is unavoidable.

 

 

 

I have seen plenty of very scientific studies of the mind (and the brain), so that appears to be untrue.

 

But perhaps you mean something different by "scientific" than I do.

 

Only a few things in the psychiatric bible called the DSM have been proven to be brain diseases like Alzheimer's disease. The vast majority of 'mental illnesses' cannot be proven to exist in the brain in objective reality. Also, psychiatry uses a different nosology than the nosological medical branch that deals with brain diseases such as Parkinson's diseases. If mental illnesses were real brain diseases then psychiatry would not need it's own seperate nosological branch. Psychiatry is grade-A bullshit pseudo-science or as Thomas Szasz says psychiatry should be called pseudology or the 'science of lies'.

 

The phrase "citation needed" comes to mind.

 

 

Any evidence for that? Or any of your claims?

 

Philosophy is armchair thinking I don't need a cititation but then again you already figured that out since you are self proclaimed 'genius' right ? Science and philosophy both deal with objective truth but they use different methods. My evidence is appeal to praxeological experience that the common man can see, without access to special labs, if he looks hard enough at certain states of affairs. That is philosophy. Perhaps I am mistaken in my praxeological perception but that remains to be seen. Anyway, I am not going to argue with you any longer. Only 1 man in 100 is worth me arguing with and you are not one of them.

Edited September 3, 2016 by CodexVeritas

[Strange]

My evidence is appeal to praxeological experience that the common man can see, without access to special labratories, if you looks hard enough at certain states of affairs. That is philosophy.

 

Sounds like "opinion" to me.

 

 

 

Perhaps I am mistaken in my praxeological perception but that remains to be seen.

 

That is why science differs from philosophy. Science allows you to find out if you are mistaken. Philosophy doesn't.

 

So neither of them deal with "truth", but for different reasons.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

... Anyway, mental illness does not exist.

So how do you explain this?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/man-stabbed-father-and-kids-to-save-them-from-crucifixion-752424.html

[Delta1212]

 

Sounds like "opinion" to me.

 

 

That is why science differs from philosophy. Science allows you to find out if you are mistaken. Philosophy doesn't.

 

So neither of them deal with "truth", but for different reasons.

Well, that's not entirely true. Philosophy does allow you to determine if you are mistaken in certain specific ways. If there is a flaw in your reasoning, you can certainly discover that using purely philosophical tools. It's just that it can't tell you anything about the accuracy of your premises.

 

Science, on the other hand, will tell you when there is a problem somewhere, be it in your reasoning or the facts that you founded your reasoning on, by giving you results other than the ones you were expecting.

[Strange]

Well, that's not entirely true. Philosophy does allow you to determine if you are mistaken in certain specific ways. If there is a flaw in your reasoning, you can certainly discover that using purely philosophical tools. It's just that it can't tell you anything about the accuracy of your premises.

 

 

Good point, well made.

[StringJunky]

.....Only 1 man in 100 is worth me arguing with and you are not one of them.

Big-headed much? The arrogance of ignorance comes to mind.

[Phi for All]

Philosophy is armchair thinking I don't need a cititation but then again you already figured that out since you are self proclaimed 'genius' right ?

 

!

Moderator Note

The "Genius" proclamation is a forum-awarded rating based on post count, and isn't editable by members. It starts with Lepton and improves as you participate in discussions.

[tkadm30]

A "mental illness" is not based on scientific evidences, but on the testimonial of the patient to the psychiatrist. Try to find a psychiatrist who will do brain scans to figure out the cause of the mental disorder.

[Delta1212]

A "mental illness" is not based on scientific evidences, but on the testimonial of the patient to the psychiatrist. Try to find a psychiatrist who will do brain scans to figure out the cause of the mental disorder.

You are confusing evidence with specific kinds of evidence.

 

Symptoms proffered by the patient or that are readily apparent to the observer without the aid of equipment is still evidence.

[tkadm30]

 

Mental illness’ is terribly misleading because the ‘mental disorders’ we diagnose are no more than descriptions of what clinicians observe people do or say, not at all well established diseases — Statement of Allen Frances, Psychiatrist and former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman, 2015

 

A medical diagnosis and a psychiatric diagnosis are two different things.

 

 

“There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder.” “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bull—. I mean, you just can’t define it.” — Allen Frances, Psychiatrist and former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman

 

Psychiatry, unlike medicine, is not evidence-based science. Take it or quit telling me that observations are

pure scientific evidences..

 

https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/psychiatristsphysicians-on-lack-of-any-medicalscientific-tests/

 

 

Note that a causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence,^[1] but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish observations as evidence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence