A philosophical and scientific refutation of 'mental illness'

[Strange]

 

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

 

 

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/

 

 

 

That is an idiotic website. For example:

 

 

Note: None of this is to say that people do not experience emotional or behavioral problems, but the fact remains the diagnosis are not a disease and the treatments (drugs) are not without serious, even life threatening risks. Whatever choice people make, they deserve the facts in order to make an informed decision.

 

The diagnosis is not the disease, even for physical disorders. And, in the case of physical disorders, they can often only be diagnosed by the patients description of what they experience. That doesn't make the disorder any less real. And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin.

 

It seems to me that the only people who argue that there is no such thing as mental illness (despite the many people who are severely impacted by it) are those who just want to deny there is anything wrong with themselves.

 

Fine. Just don't tell anyone about the voices prompting you to kill strangers, and no one will think there is anything wrong with you ...

Edited February 24, 2017 by Strange

[Argent]

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.

MRI-Based Measurement of Hippocampal Volume in Patients With Combat-Related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

Unusual brain growth patterns in early life in patients with autistic disorder

Neuroanatomical abnormalities before and after onset of psychosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal MRI comparison

 

A further 100,000 examples are available on request.

[tkadm30]

 

 

That is an idiotic website. For example:

 

The diagnosis is not the disease, even for physical disorders. And, in the case of physical disorders, they can often only be diagnosed by the patients description of what they experience. That doesn't make the disorder any less real. And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin.

 

It seems to me that the only people who argue that there is no such thing as mental illness (despite the many people who are severely impacted by it) are those who just want to deny there is anything wrong with themselves.

 

Fine. Just don't tell anyone about the voices prompting you to kill strangers, and no one will think there is anything wrong with you ...

 

You have absolutely no idea how a psychiatric diagnosis is declared. Feel lucky I don't report this as an abusive rant to make people thinking that I'm mentally unstable.

[Strange]

Feel lucky I don't report this as an abusive rant to make people thinking that I'm mentally unstable.

 

 

I wasn't referring you, specifically.

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

[StringJunky]

I wasn't referring you, specifically.

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

Probably better to say 'one' to avoid ambiguity.

[Strange]

Probably better to say 'one' to avoid ambiguity.

 

 

In many cases, but that sentence would have been really hard to write like that...

Edited February 25, 2017 by Strange

[StringJunky]

In many cases, but that sentence would have been really hard to write like that...

Yeah, would need rewording.

[akeley]

all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin.

 

Fairly shocking to see an established member from the Science side to write something like this. Did you just seriously dismiss the severity of psychiatric drugs side effects, because...aspirine? Lost for words.

 

I`ve been frequenting scientific forums for a comparably short time, yet I`m extremely disappointed by the general quality of discourse. It seems to be the same pattern everywhere: basically, a bunker mentality which goes "if you`re not with us you`re against us". Now, of course, this is about science and not something more vague like politics or religion, therefore this attitude is partially justified since it should not be about opinions but facts. Also, the usually very, very poor standard of the "opponents" arguments flooding these forums - OP being one of them - can again sort of explain such responses.

 

But only to a point. As members of the community which promotes reason and inquiry you should do much better than just dismiss and hand wave a super serious subject off only because the proponent is not too clear or produces mixed quality argument. Quite often I see the Science posters who actually seem to enjoy the shooting-fish-in-the-barrel exercise so much that they completely ignore the real issue.

 

I mean - do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry? If so, I have no further questions.

[StringJunky]

Fairly shocking to see an established member from the Science side to write something like this. Did you just seriously dismiss the severity of psychiatric drugs side effects, because...aspirine? Lost for words.

I think you read what he wrote in the wrong way.

 

" And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin." (my bold)

[Argent]

I mean - do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry? If so, I have no further questions.

I have little knowledge of psychiatry. What do you feel it principle problems are at present? If you choose to answer please indicate which country or countries you are speaking of.

 

My participation in this thread was to point out the fallacy in a statement by tkadm30. It's in post #27. Do you feel my post was an example of the "shooting fish in a barrel" approach you condemn?

[Strange]

Did you just seriously dismiss the severity of psychiatric drugs side effects, because...aspirine?

 

 

No.

 

 

 

I mean - do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry?

 

No.

[Daecon]

Could a phobia be considered as something akin to a mental illness?

[Argent]

Could a phobia be considered as something akin to a mental illness?

Both would seem to involve an irrational interpretation of some aspect of reality.

[iNow]

Phobias are a type of anxiety. In all but the most extreme cases, anxiety is not a mental illness, so no.

Edited March 2, 2017 by iNow

[Argent]

Phobias are a type of anxiety. In all but the most extreme cases, anxiety is not a mental illness, so no.

Daecon did not suggest they were a mental illness. He mused that they were "something akin to" a mental illness. If as you say, in the most extreme cases, they can be considered a mental illness then their presence on the same spectrum suggests that Daecon is correct in his supposition: they are "something akin to" a mental illness.

[Strange]

Phobias are a type of anxiety. In all but the most extreme cases, anxiety is not a mental illness, so no.

 

 

So, in the extreme cases, yes.

[StringJunky]

 

 

So, in the extreme cases, yes.

If a persistent behaviour or thought process, that is not easily within your control, affects your life pathologically it's an illness.

Edited March 2, 2017 by StringJunky

[akeley]

I think you read what he wrote in the wrong way.

 

" And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin." (my bold)

 

I gave it a second go and a fair think-over but try as might I fail to detect any other meaning in this statement than the one that I had a problem to start with. That is: we have a poster in disagreement with another and the above is his rebuttal of the part of the article stating how harmful psychiatric drugs can be by dismissing it with: "all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin."

 

Now, English is my second language, I might be biased against the poster or just simply miss something. You`re welcome to explain any alternative meaning - the author in his reply didn`t offer much past the negative.

 

I have little knowledge of psychiatry. What do you feel it principle problems are at present? If you choose to answer please indicate which country or countries you are speaking of.

 

My participation in this thread was to point out the fallacy in a statement by tkadm30. It's in post #27. Do you feel my post was an example of the "shooting fish in a barrel" approach you condemn?

 

Re: problems of psychiatry:

-overprescribing of psychiatric drugs

-prescribing psychiatric drugs based on weak assessments/diagnosis

-prescribing psychiatric drugs when alternatives can be considered

-prescribing psychiatric drugs motivated by personal gain (Big Pharma angle).

 

These are just off top of my head, there`s of course more on the "idiotic" website and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_surrounding_psychiatry.

The countries I refer to could be described as the ones ascribing to the Western - free market philosophy, since these are the ones I know best.

 

Re: your participation in this thread:

I`d need more data (post history) to establish if your behaviour qualifies for the barrel/fish exercise. In this particular case it`s of course ok to correct somebody`s mistake - if it was repeated ad nauseum without trying to engage in real discussion then perhaps yes. Your aside "A further 100,000 examples are available on request" might be an indicator of being emotionally involved however. Well...since you asked

 

Also: none of the links in your post work for me, it might be something to do with my heavily modded browser though?

[StringJunky]

 

I gave it a second go and a fair think-over but try as might I fail to detect any other meaning in this statement than the one that I had a problem to start with. That is: we have a poster in disagreement with another and the above is his rebuttal of the part of the article stating how harmful psychiatric drugs can be by dismissing it with: "all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin."

No drugs are side-effect-free. It's all relative to your own experience what is bad and what is not. It's all about weighing up the benefits vs adverse effects.

[Strange]

If a persistent behaviour or thought process, that is not easily within your control, affects your life pathologically it's an illness.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Similarly, if hearing voices does not affect your day to day life, it is not a "mental illness". But when those voices drive you to attack random strangers (because you also suffer from other psychoses) then it clearly becomes an "illness".

 

(Excuse the use of generic you, again, but that is a standard part of my idiolect.)

 

I gave it a second go and a fair think-over but try as might I fail to detect any other meaning in this statement than the one that I had a problem to start with. That is: we have a poster in disagreement with another and the above is his rebuttal of the part of the article stating how harmful psychiatric drugs can be by dismissing it with: "all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin."

 

Now, English is my second language, I might be biased against the poster or just simply miss something. You`re welcome to explain any alternative meaning - the author in his reply didn`t offer much past the negative.

 

As English is not your first language, maybe I should try and make the point more clearly.

 

Yes, psychiatric medications can have serious side effects. These can lead people to stop taking them, sometimes with negative results. The point is that this is not unique to psychiatry (which the article in question seemed to be arguing). It is true of all medications for all conditions. So, in all cases, whether a disorder is "physical" or "mental" (which seems a fairly meaningless distinction) the use of medication is a balance between its benefits (whether that is pain relief or reduction of psychotic symptoms) and its side effects.

 

Is that clearer?

 

The article linked had many other statements that seemed to me to be equally fallacious and intended solely to gain an emotional effect, rather than making a rational argument.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Exactly.

 

Similarly, if hearing voices does not affect your day to day life, it is not a "mental illness". But when those voices drive you to attack random strangers (because you also suffer from other psychoses) then it clearly becomes an "illness".

 

(Excuse the use of generic you, again, but that is a standard part of my idiolect.)

Yes, it also applies if it affects those around you as well.

[akeley]

As English is not your first language, maybe I should try and make the point more clearly.

I can see you couldn`t resist going with the cheap shot, however it is also fairly unsurprising. As somebody who has spoken and thinks in English for the last 15 years I do not actually have big problems with reading and comprehension. I only offered the above in case there really was some alternative explanation to your quote.

 

As we can see there wasn`t - and you shouldn`t really have bothered with the long-winded version since it`s just at best a truism or at worst a lame strawman. All wars cause casualties, therefore we shouldn`t worry about a current conflict. All sports come with a risk of injury so no need to concentrate on boxing. All medical drugs have side effects - so why pick on psychiatric ones?

 

It`s still a shockingly lame reasoning, given the severity of the subject. Can only explain it by your blind urge to discredit the article. Now, if you really have done your homework you could pick on the fact that this site is sponsored by Scientology, which is never a good thing. However, even that shouldn`t deny the fact that they`re presenting important issues and providing some useful service with the database. The thing in question could be their motives or - in case of other, similar sites - merchandise they`re peddling.

 

Sadly, the lack of real discussion around the subject (and attitudes witnessed here for example) cause such opportunists to thrive. By "real" I mean not just the sport of shredding easy targets like the OP or dismissing everything that goes against established consensus as "conspiracy". After all your answer to my "do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry?" was "no". So far I failed to see any engagement in this regard - perhaps scoring cheap semantic points is more important.

This on top of making more WTF-type statements such as:

"It seems to me that the only people who argue that there is no such thing as mental illness (despite the many people who are severely impacted by it) are those who just want to deny there is anything wrong with themselves."

There`s other option: maybe they aren`t really arguing "there`s no such thing as mental illness" and are unhappy with the status quo of the entire profession and the lack of engagement in the subject?

 

Similarly, if hearing voices does not affect your day to day life, it is not a "mental illness". But when those voices drive you to attack random strangers (because you also suffer from other psychoses) then it clearly becomes an "illness".

So, if I start hearing "voices" - but I still be able to function and not murder people - then I shouldn`t worry, because you declared it`s not an "illness"? And voices telling me to kill are not psychoses in themselves, they require other psychoses to kick in?

 

And from String Junky:

No drugs are side-effect-free. It's all relative to your own experience what is bad and what is not. It's all about weighing up the benefits vs adverse effects.

Did it maybe occur to you that if you`re having a severe mental episode you aren`t able to think clearly (surprise!) and pontificate on experiences and weigh pros and contras. Maybe you`re in blind panic or just completely "gone" and in hands of a psychiatrist. Whose qualifications and choice of treatment is one of the issues we`re working very hard to avoid discussing here.

 

Please treat the above questions as rhetorical from me - mental health is one of the subjects I find extremely depressing (how fitting) and I`m withdrawing from posting in this thread, given complete lack of any discussion of substance. I just sincerely hope no person with real psychiatric issues will read your input.

[Strange]

I can see you couldn`t resist going with the cheap shot, however it is also fairly unsurprising.

 

 

It wasn't intended as a cheap shot. You said English wasn't your first language. You neglected to add that you were fluent and I didn't need to worry about your comprehension skills.

 

 

 

All wars cause casualties, therefore we shouldn`t worry about a current conflict. All sports come with a risk of injury so no need to concentrate on boxing.

 

Er, no. Absolutely not what I was trying to say.

 

As I am obviously unable to make myself understood I will drop out of this discussion. Sorry for wasting your time.

[StringJunky]

Please treat the above questions as rhetorical from me - mental health is one of the subjects I find extremely depressing (how fitting) and I`m withdrawing from posting in this thread, given complete lack of any discussion of substance. I just sincerely hope no person with real psychiatric issues will read your input. (correction applied)

You are clearly emotionally wedded to this subject and it's the best thing to do sometimes. We have people with psychiatric issues frequently and we treat them the best we can but we don't try and be what we are not and it's not allowed.

[Velocity_Boy]

So far from what I've read of your posts, Mr Veritas....You are guilty of false advertising. As you have provided us with no scientific data that refutes the term Mental Illness. Or even slightly denigrates the idea of its validity. There are of course, millions of mentally ill souls in the world. Maybe you just need to get out a bit more?

 

From what I've read, you have offered up nothing more than a Tom Cruise-esque rant against psychology.

 

Am I wrong?

 

Where's your science?