View Single Post
Old 16th July 2018, 09:20 AM   #286
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well, no duh! Of course it's always an opinion. Usually, it's an objective opinion formed by several sessions of interaction with a patient, interviews with family, etc. That's what the standards of practice call for. You are, of course, free to cite an alternative standard that I've missed, but I won't hold my breath.That's an uncharitable misreading of my posts.If you think the standards and ethics of Psychiatry and Psychology are pseudoscience and an insistence on adhering to sound, ethical practice is "irrational devotion to dogma," well, that's an interesting opinion.
Yes, trying to buttress your arguments by insisting that an ethics rule is based on imaginary science is definitely pseudo-science. It's one thing to have a different opinion about the ethics here, but simply refusing to acknowledge any ethical dilemma here is either irrational devotion to a dogma that won't allow any such thing, or it's ordinary disingenuous argument, so I'm actually giving you the benefit of a doubt. On the one hand, you can't credibly deny that the Yale group is right -- anyone (with the possible exception of theprestige) can see that if Trump isn't NPD, then there's no such thing -- but on the other you want to claim that it's just politically motivated so it doesn't really mean anything. I have to wonder why you are so concerned about protecting a profession if you really don't really believe it serves any useful purpose.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top