You're insisting that because a text is religious, it must be viewed differently than any piece of non-religious text.
Actually, Quigu's insisting that it must not be viewed differently than a non-religious text. Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote. He's saying that the bible, as conceived and written, contains a great many moral claims that any modern person should be uncomfortable with.
His critics contend that since it is a religious text, the bible must not be viewed solely in that historical lens. Instead, it should be tempered by the ongoing rulings and practices of governing religious bodies, such as the church in Rome. So even if the bible says one thing, that is not the final word: religion is a whole body of institutions and ideological bases, of which the bible is only one.
In this debate, I tend to side with Qingu, for a number of reasons. The main reasons I side with him is that the theological Christian god is intellectually vapid: there are obvious reasons not to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal god, and that is what the Christian orthodoxy has decided must exist. Hence, I put very little stock in the Christian orthodoxy, or any supporting theological apparatus. A great deal of it is trying to make a square circle sound less absurd than it obviously is, often by cloaking it in ineffable mystery, whatever that is. Theology is a rotten endeavor, ridden with termites at the foundation: at various points in history the Church has committed itself to absurdities, usually because they were pressing debates at the time, which then were resolved into doctrine. And now, because of its peculiar structure, it is very hard to go back on those decisions.
but regardless of that, I think you are severely misrepresenting Qingu. He is resisting the notion that religious texts should be interpreted any differently from regular historical texts, not supporting that notion.
EDIT: actually, I think I totally misinterpreted you. My bad!
You misread me. I said that saggio is saying that.
Edit: Hah dammit in the time it took me to read that you edited it.
Sepah on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
I'm not sure what objection you're raising. Can you elaborate?
MrMister on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
I'm not sure what objection you're raising. Can you elaborate?
I think that you are misconstruing the opposing view. I don't think that the people objecting to Qingu are saying that you need to understand the author's intention. It is much more complex than that - that you need to understand both the contextual situation of the author such that you understand how meaning was generated at the time and you need to understand how we interact with the meaning of a text.
Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
I'm not sure what objection you're raising. Can you elaborate?
I think that you are misconstruing the opposing view. I don't think that the people objecting to Qingu are saying that you need to understand the author's intention. It is much more complex than that - that you need to understand both the contextual situation of the author such that you understand how meaning was generated at the time and you need to understand how we interact with the meaning of a text.
Unless you're arguing that a text several millenniums old was inappropriate for its time as well as now, then the author's original intent is superfluous to interpreting it in a modern context.
When it makes the claim to be the unvarnished word of a perfect timeless deity, then it had better still be relevant and correct whatever the time period its being read in.
Sepah on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think that you are misconstruing the opposing view. I don't think that the people objecting to Qingu are saying that you need to understand the author's intention. It is much more complex than that - that you need to understand both the contextual situation of the author such that you understand how meaning was generated at the time and you need to understand how we interact with the meaning of a text.
I don't think I'm misconstruing the opposing view, although I haven't actually fully engaged with it yet. There are all sorts of moves that people can try in order to make Christianity fit together nicely with the bible and the established practices, and I've not specifically addressed very many of them. However, there are problems that Qingu rightly points out, such as the fact that the bible was not written with the intent that it be moderated by the ongoing culture of church and clergy: there seem to be clear content clues to the contrary.
MrMister on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Edit: DOUBLE POST FORUM MISCONDUCT.
MrMister on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
the bible was not written with the intent that it be moderated by the ongoing culture of church and clergy: there seem to be clear content clues to the contrary.
the bible was not written with any intent, because it was not written. Genesis itself has the "intent" of multiple groups via editing. Intent is more or less useless and is the result of the western subjective notion of an author.
Namely, that we try to divine the meaning through the intention of the writers, as we can understand it through the combination of the literal words together with the historical and cultural context in which they wrote.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
I think it's a different game, though, trying to establish ethical or moral ideas present in a text, from establishing the intention of the authors. The authors might have intended to maintain their own power, they might have been coerced for the purpose of maintaining the power of another, they might be passing along divinely-inspired info, they might be tripping balls on ergot-contaminated bread. All of this is only tangentially related to what Qingu claims to have done, which is to read the text and find apparent values that are objectionable from the perspective of our culture in 2009.
I'm hard-pressed to understand why even the historical hermeneutic is necessary for this very narrow analysis, much less the religious one.
I absolutely agree with you, though, that the reader's expectations are paramount. An incredible amount of perception is based on preconceptions in any circumstance, and a morass of inconsistencies like the Bible magnifies this hilariously. Well. Hilarious if you don't work in an abortion clinic, I guess.
the bible was not written with any intent, because it was not written. Genesis itself has the "intent" of multiple groups via editing. Intent is more or less useless and is the result of the western subjective notion of an author.
Take the sentence: "it's cold in here."
Depending on the intention of the speaker, that could mean any of a number of things. For instance, it could mean "close the god damn window, I'm freezing." It could also mean "the room temperature has reached a point where the reaction can proceed as planned, so add the reagent." And that's just some of the imperatives it could convey.
Even if a text is written, edited, and otherwise picked over by multiple authors in multiple time periods, that doesn't mean that there is an essential interpretive step in understanding what the written words are supposed to mean. And it also doesn't mean that there isn't one interpretive step that is better justified than its' competitors.
psychiatry is more limited and limiting than psychology which doesn't presume to be as exact a science. psychiatry has more dangerous tendencies, even if only because a lot of MD's tack on a psychiatry certification without properly understanding what they're doing, and treating the mind like it's just another sick part of the body.
or, you know, don't. it's science, so it's fucking infallible.
You can simultaneously think that science if fallible, and also that it's our best method for understanding a range of phenomena.
You can even think that the common label of science is simplistic, because what has been called science has over time has encompassed vastly different methods and concerned itself with vastly different domains of problems.
whatever, my point is that psychiatry isn't very firmly established as a science. There has been all kinds of backlash against it, from Karl Popper to F. Scott Fitzgerald. Not all criticism is an attempt to exploit/recruit people with problems ala scientology.
but it's easy to be like Adrien and pretend any questioning of psychiatry is akin to someone questioning the church, thereby questioning god. Teh blasphemy! i dun wanna knooooez
You are attacking an entire field of science, when challenged you make vague appeals to novels that were published in 1934, and for no particular reason accuse your debating partners of dogmatism and close-mindedness.
You might as well link to the CCHR for all the good it'll do you.
whatever, my point is that psychiatry isn't very firmly established as a science. There has been all kinds of backlash against it, from Karl Popper to F. Scott Fitzgerald. Not all criticism is an attempt to exploit/recruit people with problems ala scientology.
But enough of it is such an exploitative attempt that suspicion is merited of even legitimate criticism. A (bullshit, but surprisingly predictive) litmus test is whether the criticism is of a specific idea or of "psychiatry" as some kind of monolith, which explains the reaction you're getting here.
psychiatry is more limited and limiting than psychology which doesn't presume to be as exact a science. psychiatry has more dangerous tendencies, even if only because a lot of MD's tack on a psychiatry certification without properly understanding what they're doing, and treating the mind like it's just another sick part of the body.
Uhm... what in hell are you talking about?
No, never mind, I don't want to know.
Go look up criticism of psychiatry
Ha ha no.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses, and if you go around trying to attack the modern study and practice of psychiatry on a broad basis then you can fuck right off because you are objectively making the world worse.
I guarantee you I know more about this than you do.
psychiatry is more limited and limiting than psychology which doesn't presume to be as exact a science. psychiatry has more dangerous tendencies, even if only because a lot of MD's tack on a psychiatry certification without properly understanding what they're doing, and treating the mind like it's just another sick part of the body.
Uhm... what in hell are you talking about?
No, never mind, I don't want to know.
Go look up criticism of psychiatry
Ha ha no.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses, and if you go around trying to attack the modern study and practice of psychiatry on a broad basis then you can fuck right off because you are objectively making the world worse.
I guarantee you I know more about this than you do.
I guarantee you don't, and that you're attributing things to me I never said.
psychiatry is more limited and limiting than psychology which doesn't presume to be as exact a science. psychiatry has more dangerous tendencies, even if only because a lot of MD's tack on a psychiatry certification without properly understanding what they're doing, and treating the mind like it's just another sick part of the body.
Uhm... what in hell are you talking about?
No, never mind, I don't want to know.
Go look up criticism of psychiatry
Ha ha no.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses, and if you go around trying to attack the modern study and practice of psychiatry on a broad basis then you can fuck right off because you are objectively making the world worse.
I guarantee you I know more about this than you do.
I guarantee you don't, and that you're attributing things to me I never said.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses.
I'd say that modern nueropharmacology's hits vastly exceed the misses, and psychiatry is just slightly above the monkeys->dartboards level of sophistication. Although, I'd love to hear the other side, as I'm sure my impression is significantly out of date.
It's still grown leaps and bounds in the last hundred years, and will continue to get more accurate.
whatever, my point is that psychiatry isn't very firmly established as a science. There has been all kinds of backlash against it, from Karl Popper to F. Scott Fitzgerald. Not all criticism is an attempt to exploit/recruit people with problems ala scientology.
But enough of it is such an exploitative attempt that suspicion is merited of even legitimate criticism. A (bullshit, but surprisingly predictive) litmus test is whether the criticism is of a specific idea or of "psychiatry" as some kind of monolith, which explains the reaction you're getting here.
I consider psychology more legitimate than psychiatry. As a discipline, psychology more readily takes on the inherent ambiguities in labeling personal issues as diseases with magical infallible cures.
But we're sort of going in circles here. Some psychiatrists don't do therapy at all, and prescribe stimulants and antidepressants in 10 minute consultations. Some are practicing psychologists with psychiatry certification (and the ability to write prescriptions)
But we're sort of going in circles here. Some psychiatrists don't do therapy at all, and prescribe stimulants and antidepressants in 10 minute consultations. Some are practicing psychologists with psychiatry certification (and the ability to write prescriptions)
Heh, I thought that was the best part of what psychiatry had to offer.
Find it, fix it, if the fix doesn't work proscribe something else.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses.
I'd say that modern nueropharmacology's hits vastly exceed the misses, and psychiatry is just slightly above the monkeys->dartboards level of sophistication. Although, I'd love to hear the other side, as I'm sure my impression is significantly out of date.
It's still grown leaps and bounds in the last hundred years, and will continue to get more accurate.
Well, okay, "vastly" is an overstatement. It depends entirely on the disorder; rarely there are magic-bullet cures, but usually they're playing the percentages on a particular med helping you in the long term. As an example, there is no known cure for schizophrenia, but about a third of schizophrenias are completely treatable with antipsychotics. For another third, the meds bring the symptoms down to manageable levels with other techniques (therapy). The last third is completely unresponsive— nothing we can do. And of course the part that really gets people is that psychiatrists have no idea why, it just works that way. (These numbers are second hand, don't quote me.) But that's still a hell of a lot better than whatever the natural rate of spontaneous remission is.
It's true that psychiatry is in its infancy, especially compared to other branches of medicine. Part of that is by choice; psychiatry is about the unexplained, and when a brain mechanism is nailed down for something it becomes a part of neurology. It's easy to see why some people who have negative personal experiences with it could come away feeling like the entire field is full of quacks— but going by the numbers, there's no possible argument that we'd be better off without it.
It's easy to see why some people who have negative personal experiences with it could come away feeling like the entire field is full of quacks— but going by the numbers, there's no possible argument that we'd be better off without it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so here's my first opportunity to teach you: Psychiatrists are doctors. Psychologists are not. Psychiatrists go to medical school and get an MD, the same as a surgeon or an anesthesiologist or a GP. Psychologists go to grad school and get a PhD, the same as a college professor or researcher. Psychiatrists do a residency rotation in internal medicine, and two or three years as a psychiatric resident. Psychologists receive no medical training. Psychiatrists are tested and board-certified by the American Psychiatric Association (not to be confused with the American Psychological Association) and are licensed to prescribe medications. Psychologists are not licensed to prescribe in any US state aside from Louisiana and New Mexico, where they may as of recently complete an additional two-year course in psychopharmacology in order to be licensed as prescribing psychologists.
It's not that you are "essentially" allowed to practice psychiatry if you aren't a psychologist. You are "essentially" forbidden to practice psychiatry unless you are a psychiatrist. With good reason, as psychologists — while by all means wonderful people — are not doctors.
Is this a good time to ask what the terms are on your guarantee?
thanks for the snide condescension, im well aware of the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. i've also distinguished between the different varieties of psychiatrists that you find practicing.
i dont have the patience to reiterate what i've already said, so either actually read what i've written, or keep the strawmen coming.
are you aware that there are some psychiatrists who also get certified in psychology?
and that there is a difference between that and someone who could care less and only needs to hear that you're emo/anxious/psycho/ADD and will shove pills in your face within seconds?
that said psychiatrists may be certified yet psychiatry is just one out of a bunch of generalized shit they do?
I feel like you're using the term "psychology" in a much looser sense than the (other) APA would like. Are you trying to talk about the difference between psychotherapy and psychopharmacology? Because those are both a part of psychiatry. Psychotherapy is quite likely to be something prescribed or recommended by a psychiatrist, but very few psychiatrists have the time to do it themselves.
Saying that a psychiatrist should also be a psychologist is like saying that a radiologist should also hold a doctorate in electromagnetic physics.
And you are unfortunately improperly equating philosophical logic with mathematical logic. If-then, do-until, And, Or, Not, etc, these are not philosophies, they are simple states and statements of consequence. Any being in the universe with a concept of causality could figure computers out eventually.
That is just not the case at all. Logic is an active field of study in philosophy, and has been for centuries, since at least Aristotle. The application of reason and logic in mathematics is just that - an application. Logic in phillosophy studies not just the application of logic, but what logic is and is not.
Second, I don't even know what you mean when you say that material conjunction or negation "are not philosophies." These things are logical operators that apply in certain systems of logic, like, for instance, symbolic logic or syllogistic logic.
Third, logic is not the study or application of causality. Logical connection does not imply or necessitate a causal connection. They are two different things.
Okay, you should only have bolded the first sentence, as if-then, do-until, and, or, not, etc as used by computers are causal connections. If this state exists, then this consequence - causal. Do this action until the state changes - causal. And - in short do the two or more states in question exist then return a value of not zero - causal. Or - in short do any of these states in question exist then return a value of not zero - causal. These are the principles by which computers work. These are not philosophies. A computer is a machine. Computers don't run by logic, they run by causality. Currently. Even these terms don't actually describe what computers DO, they just approximate the functions. "Exist" is nothing more than an electrical charge in a location defined to be memory, for instance.
I'll retreat from the first sentence, that there is a difference between philosophical logic and mathematical logic, simply because I don't want to spend time backing it up and I could potentially be wrong, I'll give you that. Perhaps I should have called it "mechanical logic", or something. A computer was designed to emulate the human concept of logic, but emulate is all it does. It actually works on principles inherent to the universe that are independent of human thoughts.
I feel like you're using the term "psychology" in a much looser sense than the (other) APA would like. Are you trying to talk about the difference between psychotherapy and psychopharmacology? Because those are both a part of psychiatry. Psychotherapy is quite likely to be something prescribed or recommended by a psychiatrist, but very few psychiatrists have the time to do it themselves.
Saying that a psychiatrist should also be a psychologist is like saying that a radiologist should also hold a doctorate in electromagnetic physics.
im saying the complete absence of psychotherapy in the treatment of psychological disorders is like modern day bloodletting.
These are the principles by which computers work. These are not philosophies. A computer is a machine. Computers don't run by logic, they run by causality. Currently. Even these terms don't actually describe what computers DO, they just approximate the functions. "Exist" is nothing more than an electrical charge in a location defined to be memory, for instance.
I think the term you're looking for is algorithm. Strictly speaking, they're a series of instructions ordered one after another. Causality doesn't come into play so much as clever ordering of the algorithm's steps beforehand.
Then again, you're arguing against people who believe that philosophy encompasses everything and logic!11!! means the same thing regardless of if it's mathematical logic, argument and debate logic, or formal logic.
zerg rush on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Going back to religious texts (specifically the Bible), criticizing it in the exact same way as any non-historical document is somewhat moronic, considering a significant portion of it is simply written down oral tradition. Now, if you mean criticizing it in the same way you would criticize any series of oral tradition parables from the time period, well go right ahead. But it needs to be taken in with the context of when it was written. This means that you need to accept that people wrote it, and so you need to take into account political and scientific views of the time it was written. (for example, the pharisees vs the sagisees).
Going back to religious texts (specifically the Bible), criticizing it in the exact same way as any non-historical document is somewhat moronic, considering a significant portion of it is simply written down oral tradition. Now, if you mean criticizing it in the same way you would criticize any series of oral tradition parables from the time period, well go right ahead. But it needs to be taken in with the context of when it was written. This means that you need to accept that people wrote it, and so you need to take into account political and scientific views of the time it was written. (for example, the pharisees vs the sagisees).
but that means it's just an anthropological curiosity and not..what people make it out to be
Posts
You misread me. I said that saggio is saying that.
Edit: Hah dammit in the time it took me to read that you edited it.
Very few theologians try to "divine" the intention of the writers, and I, for one, think that the intention of any writer is even possible to establish.
edit* if anything, it's more important to extricate the readers expectations than the writer's intentions
I'm not sure what objection you're raising. Can you elaborate?
I think that you are misconstruing the opposing view. I don't think that the people objecting to Qingu are saying that you need to understand the author's intention. It is much more complex than that - that you need to understand both the contextual situation of the author such that you understand how meaning was generated at the time and you need to understand how we interact with the meaning of a text.
Unless you're arguing that a text several millenniums old was inappropriate for its time as well as now, then the author's original intent is superfluous to interpreting it in a modern context.
When it makes the claim to be the unvarnished word of a perfect timeless deity, then it had better still be relevant and correct whatever the time period its being read in.
I don't think I'm misconstruing the opposing view, although I haven't actually fully engaged with it yet. There are all sorts of moves that people can try in order to make Christianity fit together nicely with the bible and the established practices, and I've not specifically addressed very many of them. However, there are problems that Qingu rightly points out, such as the fact that the bible was not written with the intent that it be moderated by the ongoing culture of church and clergy: there seem to be clear content clues to the contrary.
the bible was not written with any intent, because it was not written. Genesis itself has the "intent" of multiple groups via editing. Intent is more or less useless and is the result of the western subjective notion of an author.
I think it's a different game, though, trying to establish ethical or moral ideas present in a text, from establishing the intention of the authors. The authors might have intended to maintain their own power, they might have been coerced for the purpose of maintaining the power of another, they might be passing along divinely-inspired info, they might be tripping balls on ergot-contaminated bread. All of this is only tangentially related to what Qingu claims to have done, which is to read the text and find apparent values that are objectionable from the perspective of our culture in 2009.
I'm hard-pressed to understand why even the historical hermeneutic is necessary for this very narrow analysis, much less the religious one.
I absolutely agree with you, though, that the reader's expectations are paramount. An incredible amount of perception is based on preconceptions in any circumstance, and a morass of inconsistencies like the Bible magnifies this hilariously. Well. Hilarious if you don't work in an abortion clinic, I guess.
Take the sentence: "it's cold in here."
Depending on the intention of the speaker, that could mean any of a number of things. For instance, it could mean "close the god damn window, I'm freezing." It could also mean "the room temperature has reached a point where the reaction can proceed as planned, so add the reagent." And that's just some of the imperatives it could convey.
Even if a text is written, edited, and otherwise picked over by multiple authors in multiple time periods, that doesn't mean that there is an essential interpretive step in understanding what the written words are supposed to mean. And it also doesn't mean that there isn't one interpretive step that is better justified than its' competitors.
Go look up criticism of psychiatry
You can simultaneously think that science if fallible, and also that it's our best method for understanding a range of phenomena.
You can even think that the common label of science is simplistic, because what has been called science has over time has encompassed vastly different methods and concerned itself with vastly different domains of problems.
You might as well link to the CCHR for all the good it'll do you.
But enough of it is such an exploitative attempt that suspicion is merited of even legitimate criticism. A (bullshit, but surprisingly predictive) litmus test is whether the criticism is of a specific idea or of "psychiatry" as some kind of monolith, which explains the reaction you're getting here.
Ha ha no.
Okay, I'll say this once: All of medicine has a sordid past, psychiatry's (understandably) is much more recent. Modern psychiatry is still guesswork, more or less by definition, but it's come to the point where the hits vastly exceed the misses, and if you go around trying to attack the modern study and practice of psychiatry on a broad basis then you can fuck right off because you are objectively making the world worse.
I guarantee you I know more about this than you do.
I guarantee you don't, and that you're attributing things to me I never said.
Yeah? What's that like?
I'd say that modern nueropharmacology's hits vastly exceed the misses, and psychiatry is just slightly above the monkeys->dartboards level of sophistication. Although, I'd love to hear the other side, as I'm sure my impression is significantly out of date.
It's still grown leaps and bounds in the last hundred years, and will continue to get more accurate.
I consider psychology more legitimate than psychiatry. As a discipline, psychology more readily takes on the inherent ambiguities in labeling personal issues as diseases with magical infallible cures.
But we're sort of going in circles here. Some psychiatrists don't do therapy at all, and prescribe stimulants and antidepressants in 10 minute consultations. Some are practicing psychologists with psychiatry certification (and the ability to write prescriptions)
Heh, I thought that was the best part of what psychiatry had to offer.
Find it, fix it, if the fix doesn't work proscribe something else.
i don't think you should be allowed to practice psychiatry if you aren't a psychologist. But guess what, you essentially are.
from the horse's mouth- http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/16/3
Well, okay, "vastly" is an overstatement. It depends entirely on the disorder; rarely there are magic-bullet cures, but usually they're playing the percentages on a particular med helping you in the long term. As an example, there is no known cure for schizophrenia, but about a third of schizophrenias are completely treatable with antipsychotics. For another third, the meds bring the symptoms down to manageable levels with other techniques (therapy). The last third is completely unresponsive— nothing we can do. And of course the part that really gets people is that psychiatrists have no idea why, it just works that way. (These numbers are second hand, don't quote me.) But that's still a hell of a lot better than whatever the natural rate of spontaneous remission is.
It's true that psychiatry is in its infancy, especially compared to other branches of medicine. Part of that is by choice; psychiatry is about the unexplained, and when a brain mechanism is nailed down for something it becomes a part of neurology. It's easy to see why some people who have negative personal experiences with it could come away feeling like the entire field is full of quacks— but going by the numbers, there's no possible argument that we'd be better off without it.
It's easy to see why some people who have negative personal experiences with it could come away feeling like the entire field is full of quacks— but going by the numbers, there's no possible argument that we'd be better off without it.[/QUOTE]
strawman
Okay, so here's my first opportunity to teach you: Psychiatrists are doctors. Psychologists are not. Psychiatrists go to medical school and get an MD, the same as a surgeon or an anesthesiologist or a GP. Psychologists go to grad school and get a PhD, the same as a college professor or researcher. Psychiatrists do a residency rotation in internal medicine, and two or three years as a psychiatric resident. Psychologists receive no medical training. Psychiatrists are tested and board-certified by the American Psychiatric Association (not to be confused with the American Psychological Association) and are licensed to prescribe medications. Psychologists are not licensed to prescribe in any US state aside from Louisiana and New Mexico, where they may as of recently complete an additional two-year course in psychopharmacology in order to be licensed as prescribing psychologists.
It's not that you are "essentially" allowed to practice psychiatry if you aren't a psychologist. You are "essentially" forbidden to practice psychiatry unless you are a psychiatrist. With good reason, as psychologists — while by all means wonderful people — are not doctors.
Is this a good time to ask what the terms are on your guarantee?
i dont have the patience to reiterate what i've already said, so either actually read what i've written, or keep the strawmen coming.
and that there is a difference between that and someone who could care less and only needs to hear that you're emo/anxious/psycho/ADD and will shove pills in your face within seconds?
that said psychiatrists may be certified yet psychiatry is just one out of a bunch of generalized shit they do?
does that not seem even slightly irresponsible?
Saying that a psychiatrist should also be a psychologist is like saying that a radiologist should also hold a doctorate in electromagnetic physics.
Are you aware that there are some dentists who are also fully qualified deep-sea divers?
I'll retreat from the first sentence, that there is a difference between philosophical logic and mathematical logic, simply because I don't want to spend time backing it up and I could potentially be wrong, I'll give you that. Perhaps I should have called it "mechanical logic", or something. A computer was designed to emulate the human concept of logic, but emulate is all it does. It actually works on principles inherent to the universe that are independent of human thoughts.
im saying the complete absence of psychotherapy in the treatment of psychological disorders is like modern day bloodletting.
I think the term you're looking for is algorithm. Strictly speaking, they're a series of instructions ordered one after another. Causality doesn't come into play so much as clever ordering of the algorithm's steps beforehand.
Then again, you're arguing against people who believe that philosophy encompasses everything and logic!11!! means the same thing regardless of if it's mathematical logic, argument and debate logic, or formal logic.
but that means it's just an anthropological curiosity and not..what people make it out to be