3 ms·

>If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill It's common sense, and th

>If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill It's common sense, and there is no objective proof to the contrary. "Psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Alan Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances Psychiatry/psychology also admits that social environment has substantial effects on mental illness. But asking for a "scientific" study of that is silly, because it is impossible to have an indepedent variable or control group -- because it is impossible to separate an individual from societal influences.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
You are making the claim of an objective evaluation. It is your responsibility to provide proof of its objectivity. I otherwise an more willing to take something that at least has supporting evidence, dubious as it may be, to claims that have no evidence at all beyond ‘common sense’. I think that’s a pretty common sense position, but it’s clear we don’t agree.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  There is no objective proof that mental illness even exists, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it's just like real illnesses (psychiatrists and psychologists). They're the one's claiming to be scientific. I'm merely claiming they're not being scientific. There is plenty of evidence that disfunctional social environments often lead to disfunctional individuals.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
  Ha! No. The objectivity of the foresaid practice and diagnoses is missing to begin with. Junk science does not require objective proof to be unsubstantiated when it’s own lack of objectivity falls short, as evidenced in it’s process. This is a critique of process. These results were not substantiated to begin with, but merely institutionalized. Science is not a game of institutionalizing.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

You are making the claim of an objective evaluation. It is your responsibility to provide proof of its objectivity. I otherwise an more willing to take something that at least has supporting evidence, dubious as it may be, to claims that have no evidence at all beyond ‘common sense’. I think that’s a pretty common sense position, but it’s clear we don’t agree.

50656E6973 8y ago
There is no objective proof that mental illness even exists, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it's just like real illnesses (psychiatrists and psychologists). They're the one's claiming to be scientific. I'm merely claiming they're not being scientific. There is plenty of evidence that disfunctional social environments often lead to disfunctional individuals.
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
Ha! No. The objectivity of the foresaid practice and diagnoses is missing to begin with. Junk science does not require objective proof to be unsubstantiated when it’s own lack of objectivity falls short, as evidenced in it’s process. This is a critique of process. These results were not substantiated to begin with, but merely institutionalized. Science is not a game of institutionalizing.