I guess I’ve never been one for jumping on board the main-stream bandwagon. From my early teens, I sensed that most folks around me, including my family and friends, were rather sheep-like in their nature; they were rather easily led around and fooled by authority figures such as doctors, scientists, clergymen, lawyers and, in particular, politicians.
This sense in me has continued to grow, since most Americans, over the last few years, in particular, have become even more sheep-like in their nature. Most Americans, today, are led around by their “shepherds” wherever the shepherds want them to go, whether it be to the grocery store, church, an asylum or slaughterhouse.
In particular, Americans, and most Europeans, are so whipped to the mindless ramblings of Freud, Jung, and Darwin, that to express a difference of opinion on these “geniuses'” weak-at-best “scientific” hypotheses is to be labeled an inbred lunatic, a heretic or a blasphemer. I could literally walk into a Southern Baptist church, on a bright, sunny Sunday morning, and call Jesus a homosexual, and I would not be as chastised, despised and accosted as I am when I dare to merely question the validity of psychology, psychiatry and the hypothesis entitled “the Theory of evolution” (worshiped as LAW). Yes sir, psycho-babblers and the Darwinian faithful make Christian fundamentalists look pretty open-minded and free thinking, and that’s sad. After all, most Darwinian atheists look down their noses at Luke and John-Boy church-goers, and yet they are not much different from these two “good old boys”, when it comes to faith-based lack-of-reasoning.
I ran across the following article, and it points out, in some specific terms, why I have never trusted the make-it-up-as-they-go professions of psychologist and psychiatrist. And this article also points a debunking finger at the unsubstantiated and dehumanizing hypothesis of evolution:
Psychology has long struggled to be considered scientific, given the checkered history of its eccentric pioneers, like Freud and Jung. Each of the contradictory theories emerging from psychology has struggled to do better at prediction or explanation than the “folk psychology” ordinary people use to gauge the motivations and behaviors of their fellow human beings. And the recent cases of outright fraud among some of social psychology’s leading lights examples in the New York Times and Nature have made the field suspect, some would say a laughingstock as science.
Psychiatry, though, was supposed to be better. Its practitioners had to earn an MD. It had a widely accepted, peer-reviewed guidebook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM, published by its professional society, the American Psychiatric Association. With its focus on observable symptoms, presumably rooted in biology, it had all the trappings of science. The things being said about psychiatry now, though, on the eve of publication of its latest upgrade, the DSM-5, are revealing it to be a science in crisis — if it ever was a science at all. As we list the problems, ponder whether many of the same criticisms could be leveled against Darwinism.DSM-5, coming out on May 22, is the latest edition of the official diagnostic “bible” for psychiatrists that had its genesis in 1952. Writing for Nature, David Dobbs says,
Each such manual, DSM or others, has tried to improve on its predecessor. All have failed, says psychotherapist Gary Greenberg in his entertaining, biting and essential The Book of Woe. But none has failed so spectacularly as the DSM-5.
DSM-5 removes some diagnoses, like Asperger’s syndrome, reclassifies others, and adds a number of new conditions that are, to most of us, just weird: like “Skin Picking Disorder,” “Sluggish Cognitive Tempo,” and “Compulsive Hoarding.” What about the new “Hypersexual Disorder”? Are psychiatrists just giving excuses for irresponsible behavior? Is psychiatry “cutting nature at its joints” or just manufacturing artificial pigeonholes?
Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, calls for “diagnoses based on science not symptoms.” Sounds good, but that would require theoretical bases for linking genes and neurons to behavior, a devilishly hard business. Insel believes it will take a decade to achieve the “precision medicine” desired. But what if it never comes? Michael Owen at the University of Cardiff says, “These are incredibly complicated disorders. To understand the neuroscience in sufficient depth and detail to build a diagnosis process will take a long time, but in the meantime, clinicians still have to do their work.” That implies that psychiatrists are treating patients on a non-scientific basis. And now, many are abandoning all they have — their official guidebook. As MD’s they might be qualified to diagnose physiological symptoms that could affect behavior, but on what scientific basis could they diagnose mental disorders any better than a pastor, rabbi or wise older person?
Dobbs’s review in Nature of Gary Greenberg’s new book, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, is the most devastating critique of psychiatry as a science. Dobbs writes under the headline: “Psychiatry: a very sad story.” He notes that a century ago, psychiatrists considered “masturbatory insanity” and “wedding night psychosis” as mental illnesses. That those categories were dropped and new ones added in the interim suggests psychiatry lacks scientific footing, and instead evolves according to cultural norms. Yet the APA vigorously defends DSM-5, partly because it relies on sales for revenue…
Dobbs ends with an indictment of psychiatry as a (so far) failed science:
For more than 100 years, psychiatry has been getting by on pseudo-scientific explanations and confident nods while it waited for the day, always just around the corner, in which it could be a strictly biological undertaking. Part of the DSM-5‘s long delay occurred because, a decade ago, APA leaders actually thought that advances in neuroscience would allow them write a brain-based DSM. Yet, as former APA front liner Michael First, a psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York, confirms on Greenberg’s last page, the discipline remains in its infancy.Greenberg shows us vividly that psychiatry’s biggest problem may be a stubborn reluctance to admit its immaturity. And we all know how things go when you won’t admit your problems. (emphasis added)
And here’s more:
These stinging criticisms of psychiatry as a pseudoscience can be summarized as follows:
Long history of failure.
No theoretical basis grounded in biological reality.
Reliance on a book.
Conflicts of interest.
Lack of quality control.
Focus on symptoms instead of causes.
Category errors: confusing arbitrary classification with reality.
Attempting to pigeonhole complex entities into simple categories.
Concern for consistency and consensus over empiricism.
Tortured attempts to fashion theories.
Formalizing schemes to gain legitimacy.
Promissory notes to do better in the future.
Hopes that other sciences will legitimize it.
Evolutionists would probably argue against our using #2, 4, and 5 as criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and would quibble about 3, 8, 11 and perhaps others. But Darwin skeptics could charge, and have charged, evolutionists with all these flaws. Let’s briefly see if psychiatry’s failures also apply to Darwinists:
Failure to explain the Cambrian Explosion since Darwin.
Extrapolating natural selection far beyond the evidence.
Continuing to exalt Darwin and his Origin.
Scheming to keep criticisms of Darwin out of journals and classrooms.
Flimsy assertions that “it evolved,” with little rigor.
Refusing to hear or publish scientific critiques of Darwinism.
Use of homology as evidence and explanation for adaptation.
Inventing terms like “kin selection” and “evo-devo.”
Attributing the whole biosphere to undirected causes.
Claiming the consensus accepts evolution in every meaning of the word.
Applying natural selection recklessly to everything, even the universe.
Scheming to prevent intelligent design from gaining a hearing.
Always saying “more research is needed.”
Misappropriating genetics, computer science, and development to support it.
To the extent that these kinds of criticisms should debunk psychiatry as a science, they should also debunk Darwinism as science.(emphasis added)
Freud and Fraud: I never noticed this before.
Going to a complete stranger, trained in an unreliable and questionable practice, to fix your personal and marital issues is more than stupid to me, it’s ridiculous. And longing to believe the skewed notion that one’s ancient ancestor was a puke-eating chimpanzee seems even more ridiculous. In fact, this faith in evolution seems to me to be the worst kind of self-deprecation, the worst kind of hating one’s own self. Most people would respond in a violent way if someone told them their granny was a chimp, but not the Darwinian faith-based folks. Oh no, not them!
Put these farces together, mixed with other religions, and what have you got? The screwed up and ready to implode world we live in today!
I received the following asinine, and “in denial” (to coin a psycho-babble term), response, which was not approved, from one of the mindless Darwinian faithful (Atom Ant, or something like it?):
*facepalm* Sorry, but you are confusing the mindless parroting of creationist nonsense with actual thinking. But no, I’m not offended. I’m somewhat embarrassed for you.
As I *SHAKE MY HEAD*, sadly, I say to Atom Ant, I could care less if you had been offended. In fact, I hope you were offended, and deeply! You need to be offended, over and over again, until you awake from your brainwashed coma. And, besides, I know you’re offended by the fact that you responded to this article in this most typical and jackass, Darwinian manner, and then claimed you were not offended. Most psycho-babblers would tell you you’re “in denial” and “intellectualizing”.
I am not a creationist! If you had read what I wrote, carefully, and other posts as well, then you would have known I’m not a creationist. You are a Darwinian, however, and I can prove it: you hold to an unsubstantiated hypothesis and thus you are a person of faith, just like “them” creationists.
I, on the other hand, see and sense design in all of creation, and thus my belief that the universe, et al., was designed by a grand designer. This, of course, is a belief also, but it’s based on something more reasonable than a one-hundred and fifty year old unsubstantiated fairy tale preached by atheists. Your god is natural-selection and its buddies, chance and mutation. What a triple threat piece of crap this god is! Boys and girls, can you say, “What a delusional nightmare.”?
Thank you, Atom Ant, for qualifying my statement (above) about you and your bullshit religion. Thanks for proving my point!
I knew I could get one to salivate and yelp!
Let this be a warning! Read my comment page, or be mocked!