Common Fallacies of Psychiatry Deniers, Part 1

Some common fallacies of psychiatry deniers. With special guest Melsbasketcase as "Rita." I'll post two more parts tomorrow.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• psychiatry
• anti-psychiatry
• fallacies
• reason
• science
• deidzoeb
• melsbasketcase
• diarrhea
• mental
• health
• illness

[ghostwrangler64]

Well, in the first place I didn't lie and say, " that psychiatrists have not given evidence that proves some medications are effective for some people," that's your interpretation of what I have said. But, I do agree that I am saying that, "their evidence [is] anecdotal." The only objective thing they can say is what chemicals psych meds affect. Whether or not that affect is benefical is subjective and anecdotal. So, it seems you are confused about what I said since I couldn't mean both.

[deidzoeb]

@ghostwrangler64 I accused you of lying if you think psychiatrists don't give evidence, but I should have allowed for the possibility that you think the evidence they present is flawed, so maybe you wouldn't call it "evidence". Oh well. I don't have the time or interest to keep up this argument with you. We've more or less presented our cases and we're unlikely to agree with each other. Thanks for your comments.

[ghostwrangler64]

the growth would also grow at the same rate and you would actually never be able to perceive the growth. The claim is logically coherent (internally consistent because there is nothing to contradict it), but not necessarily true because there is no external evidence to validate it. Neither you nor psychiatry has provided sufficient proof. I don't have to disprove psychiatry since it is psychiatry that has the burden of proof, and without that proof there is actually nothing to disprove, because

[deidzoeb]

@ghostwrangler64 Yes, it is psychiatry that has the burden of proof. We just disagree whether they have proven it.

[ghostwrangler64]

Hopefully this is my last post on part 1. I wanted to clarify why your argument is circular reasoning. Your argument implies that because your argument is coherent it is therefore logical, and if it is logical it is therefore true. The problem is that "coherence" is not sufficient to determine truth even though it is necessary. For instance, if I said that everything grows twice its size every 24 hours, You wouldn't be able to prove me wrong because all the instruments you would use to measure..

[deidzoeb]

@ghostwrangler64 I think I see what you mean by an argument not being true just because it seems coherent or logical, as exemplified by all of your comments here. If you said that everything grows twice its size every 24 hours, the burden of proof for that claim would be on you, not on me or ppl listening to you. I feel that psychiatrists have proven that some medications are effective for some people. You lie that they have given no proof, or that it's all anecdotal.

[blueantipole]

I think that the problem with psychiatry is not that it doesn't work, but that other things work as well. For instance, a much larger percent of mentally ill patients smoke, and everyone immediately assumes that this is an effect and not cause, and takes the individual on his word when they say "cigarettes help me deal with it," which is a common claim that I've heard repeated by psychiatrists during my therapy. I think meditation is likely more effective than medication, and so is good health

[Makethemhearragtime]

At least you have insight, you know you're talkiing shite.

[ghostwrangler64]

Further, as far as proof of negative side-effects go, the drug companies admit to such side-effects in warnings about them. So, why should I have to prove what they readily acknowledge? All I am doing is confirming the experience of the side effects they list. But, I would add the caution that the samples you get from a doctors office give a very limited list of side-effects and I think everyone should educate themselves on the side-effects and make a fully informed decision.

[ghostwrangler64]

Consequently, objective proof is impossible and you can not claim that there is any objective proof beyond the self-report of patients, and the fact that objective chemicals are being manipulated in the "hope" that such manipulation will produce subjective benefits.

[ghostwrangler64]

Again you accuse me of lying by claiming, "You lie that they have given no proof, or that it's all anecdotal." I think I already addresed this in another response, but to be clear, anecdotal evidence is evidence, but not proof, since any proof in this area is necessarily subjective because the benefits of psych meds are subjective.

[ghostwrangler64]

In fact, what I am arguing is the very opposite of what you accuse me of. I am arguing that what is true for some is not true for all. Just because some people benefit from psych meds does not mean that all will.

[ghostwrangler64]

Again you assume more than I said, when you state "It's not a good argument for everyone to stop using drugs because the side effects are too bad for some people." Now you are assuming that I made an argument that I nowhere posited. You are very intellectually dishonest in the way you read my posts. You word this argument you accuse me of in a way that assumes I am illogically arguing that what is true for some is true for all. I nowhere made such an argument.

[ghostwrangler64]

You read more into what I said than what I actually said. Thus, you create a straw man fallacy based on your assumptions. I certainly have not anywhere in my posts "tried to convince anyone not to trust their doctors. You are just lying about what I said now. I have simply laid out my experience in the hope of cautioning people not to assume that psychiatrists and doctors actually know how psych meds will affect them personally. The positive benefits are based on generalizations.

[ghostwrangler64]

Also, you give nothing but assertions and bad logic. You offer no proof and make yourself a hypocrite by accusing me of doing the same thing you are doing, offering argument. Your assertions, and that is all you offer, are themselves anecdotal.