Doctors Doubt Addiction Disease

An interview with Dr. Stanton Peele. Produced and directed by Patrick and Andrea Bergin. Copyright First Vision Productions 2003.
See Stanton Peele's website at http://www.peele.net
Find out more about Stanton Peele's latest book at http://www.addictionproofyourchild.com

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• peele
• Drugs
• disease
• addiction
• alcoholism

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"No, I said addiction and the behavior is the same all over."

So you are saying that the anomaly is the same but the interpretation is not?

Still doesn't justify the statement that "because the treatment is the same, the problem is the same"...

Your line of argument is that the treatment reflects the nature of the problem.

So when treatments change does the problem also change?

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"Naltrexone is hardly a treatment."

Naltrexone is "hardly a treatment" whilst Methadone is?

How in the hell do you justify THAT statement?

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"People addicted in NYC have many of the same problems and same behaviors as someone addicted in Tehran Iran. That was my point"

True. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

What I was saying is that the EXPERIENCE (interpretation) of these problems is different from culture to culture.

That is, an anomaly is happening but it is construed (both by the individual and by the greater society) differently.

Just as OUR culture interpreted chronic habitual drunkenness differently 250 years ago.

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

(c)

Consequently, a new emergent theory is now hypothesising that what we previously thought to be electrons are actually negatively charged spheres of energy with no actual particle in existence. However, all our industrial and domestic electrical technology is built and reliably operate on this erroneous ontic assumption and research error.

So, research that is in fundamental error can derive good reliable technology.

RESEARCH IS NOT VALID BY THE MERIT OF RECEIVED TECHNOLOGY...

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

(b)

There is evidence now that electrons (the ENTIRE basis of electromagnetic theory) don't actually exist. Subatomic theory was based on an ontologically assumed model of the solar system. No one has actually seen the INSIDE of an atom – but a “working model” of subatomic reality was assumed and all subsequent research was based on this model. Now a number of anomalies have been found in this old paradigm of research and theory...

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

(a)

"Why is research accepted as being valid? Why does anyone believe the PN junction theory? Because we can make diodes and transistors."

Another error of category...

You are confusing TECHNOLOGY (know how) with RESEARCH...

Just because the technological artifact is found to be useful and/or reliable, that doesn't automatically mean that the research that led to the technological innovation is sound.

For example, let's look at subatomic and electromagnetic research and theory.

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"Why is research accepted as being valid?"

Via peer review... If the fraternity of researchers find that the methodology, data collection, and conclusions derived are sound, then the research is deemed valid. This sometimes takes time. For example, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption now seems to be based on a common research (sample) error.

And yet most of western society has been "moderately" drinking under the erroneous idea that alcohol is beneficial to health.

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"What good is research if it can't develop an effective treatment."

That's a fine personal opinion regarding what YOU think research should or should not be used for...

However, someone else may be of the opinion that research should be used to ASSESS treatment...

But, at the end of the day, research is simply research - an investigative process that can be used to assess or discover or used for ANYTHING ELSE that the research initiators deem befitting for their purposes...

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"That isn't exactly what I said. What I said was that if addiction was so much different from society to society, you wouldn't see the same treatments being used in different societies."

For a start, the psychosocial treatments for addiction vary radically from society to society. So that statement is wrong from the outset...

Secondly, so what? Mental insanity was once conceived and treated as demonic possession...

So how does treatment have any bearing on objective reality?

[Hammersley1967]

@christo930

"When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."

So, following THAT line of reasoning, every sober alcoholic and clean addict isn't and was never an alcoholic or addict...

Why? Because they stopped...

Do you see the circularity of your argument?