Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Fucking Daoists.

The reply was to correct your false assumption, which is quoted right above, not to pull an argument from authority. Even if it was an argument from authority, a) you assume my worldview and self-image based on one sentence or assume that I have a superiority complex because I dare argue your clearly irrefutable claims, and b) the presented credentials aren't even relevant to the topic of this thread.

Prestige - my motivation for getting a Ph.D has absolutely nothing to do with any prestige that it might bring. I do it because I'm passionate about astronomy and physics. Acquiring knowledge is my motivation. Curiosity is my fuel. It does give a cool title, though.

Self-image: I don't think about it. I'm looking at the sky. It's humbling.

Moral superiority: Inexistent. Plus, I don't see any politics, morality or religious arguments here? Oh yeah, my bad - the only morality question I asked is if it's bad that patients are being treated by medicine for symptoms they experience. That clearly automatically makes me an elitist asshole with a superiority complex.

So in this thread: A shrink coudln't help Aestu, Aestu hates shrinks.

React couldn't be helped by himself. React loves shrinks.
Joklem is told he is wise by shrinks. Joklem loves shrinks.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Nonsense. If you just wanted to study the field you could open some books and read.



This post is its own contradiction. You say you're not thinking in terms of your self image but in this very post you take the moral high ground. Your sig is in the same vein, you make a hierarchical moralist statement with the implied assumption that you, and by corrolary what you believe, is better than that of those you characterise as "simple" or not thinking about "the sky".



Implied in your viewpoint is that what you are doing is RIGHT and not WRONG or even morally neutral. You asked if that is BAD with the implied assumption that you hold certain values to be GOOD and not calling into question the assumptions behind those values, amongst them that you are helping them, that they are sick, that your treatment makes them better, that what you are doing is not evil because it conflicts with other moral systems and fundamental truths that are at least as valid, or that your assistance is truly disinterested.

I've given many examples of how the practice of psychology has proven to be a moral shill that changes as social values do and not because of any scientific progress.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Studying something in a more organized environment is infinitely more fulfilling than casually (or hardcorely) reading shit on your own. Furthermore if you can then use that knowledge and that passion to pay your rent and feed yourself, that's a hell of a lot more useful than just reading some books.

I can't read stuff for fun. I need to be in that academic environment to bounce back ideas and ensure i'm actually learning properly otherwise i end up making assumptions on what i believe to be true or false if i don't have like minded humans to interact with.

You could say i could just go on the internet to corroborate my views, but lol. We've all been on the internet long enoug to know that's an exercise in futility. That's the dominant reason i don't engage in any serious debate with people on forums. My motivation is to learn and better myself, theirs to to be right on an internet forum.

That's a long winded tangential way of saying i completely disagree with your first point Mr Aestu.

In saying all of that, Joklem is preaching his studies more than anyone else i've observed on an internet forum in recent times. It's becoming a parody to the point that i'm beginning to question which Ph.D he's referring to.

Oh look, there's Aestu, doing that whole deflection/projection thing again that his shrink warned him about.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Ah, yes, examples. Let's demonstrate and flat out ignore the fact that USD was laughing at you or whether or not if those are serious.

At the top of a circle lies point A, at the bottom lies point B. A always points to B, and B always points to A. Circular logic - a logical fallacy that leads to no question being answered, as no question was asked. And oh, we find out that both the premises and the conclusion are assumed from the start! How do you draw a conclusion when you've already set such a narrow limit of what the conclusion could be, instead of staying open to any possible answers -- no matter if they contradict of your current beliefs or how emotionally uncomfortable the answer is? Your objectivity towards the problem you're facing is thus in question, and that's the least of your problems, because your method has no foundation of logic, and thus cannot lead to a logical conclusion.

It is the exact same reasoning that leads to a "creationist" arguing the fact of evolution (yes, evolution itself is a fact, any findings inbetween are up to scrutiny) pointing at his bible, saying that it is the foundation of truth, and when faced with evidence otherwise, claiming that God is Alpha and Omega, the creator of anything and everything and cannot be proven wrong as a result.

And you can't invoke some grand conspiracy that psychology and illnesses of the mind don't exist because ----------- (why actually?) without extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On top of that, it makes you fall outside of the definition of scientific literacy, as defined by the United States National Center for Education Statistics:



Let's run your first fallacy through the scientific method instead of circular logic, shall we?

React was observed committing an action and is in the process of, or has been proven guilty by a court of law. Science and law are separate -- his accountability is not in question by science, that's up to the court to decide. However React perhaps, maybe, could have been influenced by factors. So instead of making any claim without even forming a thought, we pose a question: what influenced React to commit this action? We observe and research, interviewing React & peers, looking at React's past history from childhood to the present, finding out what his beliefs and ideologies were. If sufficient evidence points towards environmental, ideological, medical, religious factors having an influence, it points towards his actions having been influenced.

The question is thus answered: Evidence A, B and C suggests that React was influenced by factors X, Y and Z. The kind of data we get from this kind of conclusion is used more in statistics, prediction and prevention of future occurence, and the good ol' SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY. People want to know what influenced him.

No law process in their right mind would say "Aww, poor kid was beaten as a child and grew up being fed [extremism of ideology X], we can't possibly convict him of a crime where evidence shows that the crime was committed!!!".

Now let's say that overwhelming evidence (i.e, tested against the scientific method) of a psychiatric condition (e.g. hallucinations from schizophrenia) was critical in the process of React committing the action he is accused of: it is presented to the court of law.

Let me stop here for a second. THIS IS WHERE THE SCIENCE ENDS.

The court then examines the case considering all evidence presented, and gives a verdict. The verdict is up to the court of law.

At this point, the science does not care what the court of law decides. It did it's job: asking a question, and building up towards an explanation to that question. Le end.

Now to address your second fallacy:

I respect Medical Doctors (I've never used the services of a psychologist - or shrink - in my entire life, by the way) as they are men of science who apply ever-evolving knowledge acquired through the scientific method in the practice of medicine. I use the expertise of health practitioners, and everyone will, at least at some points in their lives. It is a relationship - the doctor-patient relationship, which is essential in maintaining a professional rapport between a doctor and his patient, uphold his dignity and privacy.

I respect them as if they were colleagues, as we both practice science in our respective fields. I don't love psychiatrists. Love is an emotion that you couldn't possibly sense emanating from me through the letters that I typed, is it? You can't make an assumption, use it as the sole factor in an hypothesis, and expect the end result of your reasoning not to be an assumption. Assumption cannot be augmented in no way shape or form by intuition, either. There's a term used for that method, actually: pulling it out of your ass.

Astrophysics. I didn't mention it as some sort of way to say "HEY TRUST ME, I WENT TO LE UNIVERSITY!!!" (argument from authority).

I've mentioned it once to demonstrate that having a mental disorder does not automatically mean that we beat ourselves down and use the disorder as a crutch for our shortcomings. After which I was assumed to be weak willed, and tried to demonstrate once again, versus the same assumption, worded differently. I then defended myself from an attack that assumed that my worldview and self-image are based on a need for prestige and moral superiority.

There is no preaching of my studies in this thread, nowhere do I say that I am superior to anyone as a result of my studies? It was a demonstration to say "hey, I have a mental disorder, and I can lead a normal, fruitful life too, and look, I can reach my goals too!". I apologize if it sounded like something else, but that was what I was trying to convey.

You can go to another thread, of course I will mention that I'm an astrophysicist in a thread about a question involving astrophysics. How could you diverge that I am trying to somehow appear superior there?

Having a degree (not even the highest at that) in astrophysics does not make me superior to anyone. There, I said it. I even agree with you regarding people holding degrees who use it as their sole measure of superiority.

When I was being taught by my parents how to write well, one of the first lessons I was taught was that bolding, underline, and italics should be used as sparingly as possible. Good writing should speak for itself; relying on formatting for emphasis was a sign of poor writing, and more than that, a specious argument.

By the same token, logically sound lines of reasoning are based on facts, not semantics or regurgitating definitions or staid cliches about rhetoric. Anyone who's ever sat through a first-semester "Introduction to Critical Thinking" class learns so well that the only people who get infatuated with rhetorical verbiage and frame every discussion in those terms are either people who use that verbiage to mask poor thought processes, or people who resort to it because they don't have hard facts on their side.

That's pretty much what we have here. You use a lot of grossly overdone formatting (tbqh I didn't even read most of what you wrote because it hurts my eyes) and you regurgitate a lot of stock "finishers" but really you don't prove your point or disprove mine.

The question were:

-whether or not psychology/psychiatry are legitimate sciences

-whether their assumptions are really scientific or factually correct or just represent social biases, PC, and reflect the theocratic needs of a secular society

I say they are not, pointing to facts and reasoning, pointing out where the underlying logic has proven faulty, the results have been proven bad, and the trappings been proven a shill.

You have responded only with grossly over-formatted text, entries from dictionaries, and various forms of pretension such as the official-looking labels on the side of a bottle and copypasting definitions of the scientific method, without establishing the link between those things and the point you are trying to make or debunk. It's like reading a John Birch periodical or a chapter of the Haldeman biography where he tries to argue that Watergate was the Dem's fault by blabbering about facts, logic and evidence without supplying any of them.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Yes, I used formatting for emphasis, no excuse. Doesn't mean that I would do so on a paper. This is a forum.

You take me out of context, seem to not understand how science is ever-evolving because we use a method that strengthens the "good science" and phases out the "bad science", and you ask me for evidence you can believe in.

...

You can't trust anyone for evidence you can believe in. You have to read the works and understand them in order to reach a conclusion by yourself that doesn't sound like "Mental illnesses are an invention of the fake field of psychology based on the needs of a secular society to ..........(what? to what end exactly?)".

I can't argue with a conspiracy theory.

Circular reasoning is not critical thinking. It's religious thinking. I am out of this thread, and I will happily leave you to your ignorance.

so you didn't read what he wrote but you still know he didn't prove his point or disprove yours?

you're talking about someone who relies on Dr. Google. come on now.

Pretty sure I'm the only person in this thread who has referred to books I've read outside google.



So?



You haven't supplied ANY evidence, and calling something "science" doesn't make it so.

Science is defined (as you noted) on observation and experimentation resulting in the creation of testable, provable, and internally consistent theories.

The fields in question don't do any of that.

What experiments can be done to define certain conditions as pathological? Schizophrenia? Pretty straightforward. What about bipolar disorder? ADHD? Social anxiety disorder? Depression? Upon what scientific basis can one make the judgement these conditions are extant or pathological? Upon what scientific basis, what measurable and impartially definable metric, do you separate pathology from personality?

When you define individuals as having certain qualities, who do you use as your control group, and how do you define those controls without arbitrary value judgements? Say you're doing a study on depression or ADHD. How do you define individuals as having those afflictions - how do you do any research at all - without assuming the proof? You say, "We're going to do scientific ADHD research." Ok, how do you know it exists? Attributing behavior to a pathology is just one way of interpreting phenomena that could be interpreted in many ways.

How can anyone claim to have a theory of human behavior if the empirical claims of that theory can't be consistently replicated? Example, so you have a theory of how depression or ADHD or bipolar disorder works. So it follows you should have a theoretical basis upon which to cure the disease, or at least mitigate it. The reality is, psychologists don't. They can't consistently replicate their results because each person is different and their ideas as to what's going on in any person's head are nothing more than educated guesses, same as everyone else on God's green earth. Much of the realities of psychological and psychiatric practice - amongst them its reliance on restrictions of personal freedom and loose statistical correlations - reflect the reality that its claims are just shots in the dark no better than those of a layman with common sense.



If this were true we would live in a technocracy or some other form of society organized around the elitist principle that it is not possible for laymen to have a meaningful debate on any subject.

The reality is, though, there's absolutely not a single scientific field that falls back on this rationalization.

It took an Einstein to invent the theory of relativity, but in the here and now, even a layman can have a working understanding of the basic principles and see them in day-to-day life in phenomena like rainbows and latency.

It took a Darwin to invent the theory of evolution, but in the here and now, even a layman can have a working understanding of the basic principles and see them in day-to-day life in phenomena like insecticides/antibiotics and the physical layout of other creatures.

It took a Galileo to invent the heliocentric theory, but in the here and now it is easy to test it for yourself by looking at the horizon, or watching the phases of the moon and the occasional eclipse, or tracking the movement of the stars with a telescope.

You don't ever need to have read a page of Mendel or any genetic researcher or have ever gazed through an electron microscope at a strand of DNA to know that the theories are true because you can easily test them for yourself by growing vegetables or watching videos of radiation victims.

I don't understand a lot of scientific theories, but I know they are true because I see the applications, and when I read about the theories piecemeal, they are invariably consistent with my experience, even if I've never actually seen the research done or read the entire corpus of material.

Psychology fails on all those counts. It can't consistently or reliably predict real world phenomena, and it doesn't establish proofs of its assumptions past loose correlations because the experiments used to back it up are usually subjective and open to interpretation. It can't establish control groups or control all variables because for the studies to be relevant the subjects must be human.



Why not?



All circular reasoning is based on at least one assumption that forms the basis of the specious proof. What is that assumption I am making?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.