ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags depression , psychiatry

Reply
Old 16th June 2016, 09:06 PM   #121
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If sales revenues = usage, the numbers show that only a few % more people take Aspirin™ Cardio rather than Aspirin™. This is evidence against The Atheist's "most' (90% or 75% or "main" or whatever goal posts he moves to next) assertion.[/url]
Nope, and a complete logic & maths fail on your part.

I already pointed you at the recent rise of aspirin as an analgesic since Tylenol was removed.

Even then, heart usage still remains the majority of sales.

For the previous 25 years, the overwhelming majority of pills were sold for heart usage.

As always, you're completely welcome to continue being wrong.

This has reached the tedious, if hilarious stage. You fail to read and understand your own evidence and I'm the denier.

Genius.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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
Old 17th June 2016, 06:42 AM   #122
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope, and a complete logic & maths fail on your part.

I already pointed you at the recent rise of aspirin as an analgesic since Tylenol was removed.

Even then, heart usage still remains the majority of sales.

For the previous 25 years, the overwhelming majority of pills were sold for heart usage.

As always, you're completely welcome to continue being wrong.

This has reached the tedious, if hilarious stage. You fail to read and understand your own evidence and I'm the denier.

Genius.
I wonder if this is not an America / Europe thing.

I noticed the Atheist mentioned heart aspirin at 75g (European dose) where Luchog stated it was 81g (America dose). As Luchog said, in America (I am in America and agree) shelves are probably 70% pain relief, 30% heart health. There is also an entirely different child section with low dose aspirin for pain). The Atheist says this is reversed (or more) in Europe.

Also, here aspirin is in other products like peptobysmal (spelling? stomach stuff), cold remedies, etc.

Maybe both are correct?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   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
Old 19th June 2016, 01:57 PM   #123
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Question The Atheist: Evidence for "...majority of pills were sold for heart usage"

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Even then, heart usage still remains the majority of sales.
Moving the goalposts yet again to support an still unsupported assertion is not good, The Atheist, because you know that firstly that:
17 June 2016: If sales revenues = usage, the numbers show that only a few % more people take Aspirin™ Cardio rather than Aspirin™. This is evidence against The Atheist's "most" (90% or 75% or "main" or whatever goal posts he moves to next) assertion.

2015 and 2013 were not 25 years ago !
17 June 2016: The sales revenue from aspirin for heart health were slightly less than for general health in 2013.

Just in case you have evidence for once: 20 June 2016 The Atheist: Provide the sales figures that show that "For the previous 25 years, the overwhelming majority of pills were sold for heart usage"
Start with defining "overwhelming majority". Majority is > 50%. Add overwhelming and > 90%?

So yes, The Atheist, you are a denier of basic arithmetic and rational debate where people provide their evidence to support their assertions !

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th June 2016 at 02:06 PM.
Reality Check 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
Old 19th June 2016, 02:11 PM   #124
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Maybe both are correct?
The Atheist did not restrict his clam to Europe or the USA.
But if he wants to move the goalposts to regional sales then he can support it with evidence. I am not going to do his homework for him again.

ETA: the way this topic came up is interesting:
On 16th June 2016, blutoski wrote: Meanwhile, on the Medical side, MDs are still handing out Aspirin after 120 years... because it works. Not sure why anybody would consider this a credible datapoint for a claim that Medicine is a failure. Note that there is nothing there about the intended usage of Aspirin.
The Atheist's reply missed the meaning of the post: Most aspirin taken is taken for reasons of heart health, a completely different use to its original one, so it's an excellent highlight of the difference between the two disciplines.
Aspirin works so doctors use it.
Psychiatric drugs work so doctors use them.
There are no "two disciplines" - there are doctors using medications that have a track record of working. The big difference is that psychiatric drugs do not have as large a body of clinical trials as other drugs such as Aspirin. So when doctors analyze an assumption such as depressed young people react the same to psychiatric medications as depressed adults they can find the assumption to be wrong. This is scientific progress since ineffective treatments for depressed young people can be phased out.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th June 2016 at 02:24 PM.
Reality Check 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
Old 20th June 2016, 11:48 AM   #125
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The Atheist did not restrict his clam to Europe or the USA.
But if he wants to move the goalposts to regional sales then he can support it with evidence. I am not going to do his homework for him again.

ETA: the way this topic came up is interesting:
On 16th June 2016, blutoski wrote: Meanwhile, on the Medical side, MDs are still handing out Aspirin after 120 years... because it works. Not sure why anybody would consider this a credible datapoint for a claim that Medicine is a failure. Note that there is nothing there about the intended usage of Aspirin.
The Atheist's reply missed the meaning of the post: Most aspirin taken is taken for reasons of heart health, a completely different use to its original one, so it's an excellent highlight of the difference between the two disciplines.
Aspirin works so doctors use it.
Psychiatric drugs work so doctors use them.
There are no "two disciplines" - there are doctors using medications that have a track record of working. The big difference is that psychiatric drugs do not have as large a body of clinical trials as other drugs such as Aspirin. So when doctors analyze an assumption such as depressed young people react the same to psychiatric medications as depressed adults they can find the assumption to be wrong. This is scientific progress since ineffective treatments for depressed young people can be phased out.
Thanks for understanding. Yes, my actual point was that continued use of a treatment modality is not in and of itself satisfactory evidence of a disciplinary failure. It could just be that the early discovered drug was a winner.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 20th June 2016, 12:01 PM   #126
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Thanks for understanding. Yes, my actual point was that continued use of a treatment modality is not in and of itself satisfactory evidence of a disciplinary failure. It could just be that the early discovered drug was a winner.

And that's the other big failure with TheAtheist's aspirin comparison. The treatment modalities for the two uses are completely different, which he completely fails to account for.

The modality for coronary disease protection is daily use of a small dose. The modality for analgesic and antipyretic use, which is still quite common, is a much larger pro re nata dose. Comparing them is apples and oranges, and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the efficacy or validity of either. Aspirin wasn't dropped for analgesic/antipyretic use, it was reduced due to competition with other medications which have similar primary effects and a different range of side effects, each of which has a different range of conditions it is more or less effective at treating than the others; as well as the fact that different people can have significantly different reactions to each.

You know, exactly how psychiatric medication works.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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
Old 20th June 2016, 12:06 PM   #127
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Oh come on, we all know this all about people who think that hey, I had mental problems and I turned out all right, I toughed it out, so you can too. Perp said exactly that, TA said that their friend had that experience, we all know that everyone who harps on this issue has a similar story, it's representative bias and confirmation bias at it's most basic, same old story. We've all heard it, you're weak, you're choosing this, you just have to switch your brain over to the right evolutionary module, I know the real truth, I know better than all of those doctors and universities and doctor's associations and science foundations, I know. They are snake oil and failing, where I have succeeded. Representitive bias. You can see it by how shallow they see.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 20th June 2016 at 12:09 PM.
Joey McGee 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
Old 20th June 2016, 07:02 PM   #128
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
 
recursive prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,481
Always fascinated by the certainty of so many on nebulous, generalized discussions like this. Had some very solid personal experiences 54 years ago where several predictions made proved lol wrong, and same with a nephew.

So while I would never go again to any psychs of any stripe, I'm sure it works for some, and a friend was a therapist for 12 years and assures me that is true. Anyone here ever read any Thomas Szasz?
__________________
Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
recursive prophet 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
Old 21st June 2016, 07:18 AM   #129
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by recursive prophet View Post
So while I would never go again to any psychs of any stripe, I'm sure it works for some, and a friend was a therapist for 12 years and assures me that is true. Anyone here ever read any Thomas Szasz?

Quite a bit. He's a crank stuck in a half-century-plus-old model of psychiatry which is dominated by now-discredited Freudian psychoalalysis, and refuses to acknowledge the tremendous advances in neuroscience and neurochemistry that have demonstrated a physiological basis for many mental disorders, which he continues to deny are true disorders. He's a classic example of how even the well-educated can fall into woo beliefs, particularly beliefs they make up themselves.

In this day and age I'm surprised anyone pays the slightest attention to him.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:02 PM   #130
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Quite a bit. He's a crank stuck in a half-century-plus-old model of psychiatry which is dominated by now-discredited Freudian psychoalalysis, and refuses to acknowledge the tremendous advances in neuroscience and neurochemistry that have demonstrated a physiological basis for many mental disorders, which he continues to deny are true disorders. He's a classic example of how even the well-educated can fall into woo beliefs, particularly beliefs they make up themselves.

In this day and age I'm surprised anyone pays the slightest attention to him.
His views are amplified and propagated by millions of Scientology dollars a month, is why.

He was one of the original founders of Scientology's astroturf org [CCHR], and they depend heavily on his 50+ years obsolete snapshot of psychiatry, since there aren't a lot of current professionals or any current research that supports their view.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:28 PM   #131
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
His views are amplified and propagated by millions of Scientology dollars a month, is why.

He was one of the original founders of Scientology's astroturf org [CCHR], and they depend heavily on his 50+ years obsolete snapshot of psychiatry, since there aren't a lot of current professionals or any current research that supports their view.

I was not aware of the Scientology link. That explains a lot about his books.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:35 PM   #132
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,387
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I was not aware of the Scientology link. That explains a lot about his books.
I don't think it's any great mistake if you dismiss Szasz, but it seems wrong to think that one alliance with Scientology explains* his views.



Here's wiki on that:


Quote:
Relationship to Citizens Commission on Human Rights[edit]
In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) to oppose involuntary psychiatric treatments. Szasz served on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner.[29] In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated, "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before."[30]

Distancing from any type of religion[edit]
In a 2009 interview aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Szasz explained his reason for collaborating with CCHR and lack of involvement with Scientology:

Well I got affiliated with an organisation long after I was established as a critic of psychiatry, called Citizens Commission for Human Rights, because they were then the only organisation and they still are the only organisation who had money and had some access to lawyers and were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it's still a very worthwhile cause. I no more believe in their religion or their beliefs than I believe in the beliefs of any other religion. I am an atheist, I don't believe in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism and I don't believe in Scientology. I have nothing to do with Scientology.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz



* I'm ignoring the nuance of "explains a lot" -- which is a somewhat humorous expression
__________________
Now you know for certain what the big wide world is good for.

Last edited by calebprime; 21st June 2016 at 12:37 PM.
calebprime is online now   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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:37 PM   #133
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Flock together.
Joey McGee 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:46 PM   #134
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I was not aware of the Scientology link. That explains a lot about his books.
I'm not sure they influence his content, but my impression is that they invest in means to amplify his message, because it might as well be made-to-order for their purposes.

Basically, I'm addressing the question of how a crackpot can have such a wide exposure, and the answer is: Scientology dollars.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:51 PM   #135
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Watching a scientist squirm in their seat over taking Templeton Foundation dollars, a pastime I enjoy thoroughly.
Joey McGee 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:53 PM   #136
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
I don't think it's any great mistake if you dismiss Szasz, but it seems wrong to think that one alliance with Scientology explains* his views.
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm not sure they influence his content, but my impression is that they invest in means to amplify his message, because it might as well be made-to-order for their purposes.

Basically, I'm addressing the question of how a crackpot can have such a wide exposure, and the answer is: Scientology dollars.

Not entirely, but it does amply demonstrate that he's a denialist crank willing to get in bed with other denialists; and isn't intellectually honest enough to really evaluate the sort of people that he allies with. The fact that he continues to defend the alliance despite the overwhelming evidence of the harm that Scientology has caused, and the complete lack of good that they had done, is ample evidence of that. It also demonstrates how someone with so little understanding of actual science has managed to acquire such a wide exposure, range of publications, and support; something that few other cranks manage. He has a ready-made choir that he can preach to.

The fact that he maintains his insistence that so many neurological disorders are "behavioural" is just further evidence that he's a denialist crank. His philosophy and views are intellectually bankrupt, and based on long-debunked Freudian psychoanalysis and badly outdated medical knowledge.

Interesting that his only real academic supporters these days are from the field of social sciences, about the softest of all the soft sciences; and more prone to woo than any other.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 21st June 2016 at 12:55 PM.
luchog 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
Old 21st June 2016, 12:59 PM   #137
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
The social scientists aren't more prone to woo, their cranks are most capable of getting media attention, let's not get that mixed up. There are more social science woos compared to crank physics woos? No...
Joey McGee 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:03 PM   #138
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: "Hard" sciences are more rigorous and scientific than "soft" sciences.

CORRECTION: Some scientists and philosophers have tried to draw a line between "hard" sciences (e.g., chemistry and physics) and "soft" ones (e.g., psychology and sociology). The thinking was that hard science used more rigorous, quantitative methods than soft science did and so were more trustworthy. In fact, the rigor of a scientific study has much more to do with the investigator's approach than with the discipline. Many psychology studies, for example, are carefully controlled, rely on large sample sizes, and are highly quantitative. To learn more about how rigorous and fair tests are designed, regardless of discipline
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

That site is so hard.
Joey McGee 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:07 PM   #139
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Not entirely, but it does amply demonstrate that he's a denialist crank willing to get in bed with other denialists; and isn't intellectually honest enough to really evaluate the sort of people that he allies with. The fact that he continues to defend the alliance despite the overwhelming evidence of the harm that Scientology has caused, and the complete lack of good that they had done, is ample evidence of that. It also demonstrates how someone with so little understanding of actual science has managed to acquire such a wide exposure, range of publications, and support; something that few other cranks manage. He has a ready-made choir that he can preach to.

The fact that he maintains his insistence that so many neurological disorders are "behavioural" is just further evidence that he's a denialist crank. His philosophy and views are intellectually bankrupt, and based on long-debunked Freudian psychoanalysis and badly outdated medical knowledge.

Interesting that his only real academic supporters these days are from the field of social sciences, about the softest of all the soft sciences; and more prone to woo than any other.
One of the other concerns I have is that he dabbles in reification questions, but only in psychiatry. For example, he points out (accurately) that our concept of mental illness is ultimately a human chosen categorization of what is really a point on a continuum.

Well, yes. So's saying that chickenpox is an illness. My sister disagrees - she calls that 'medicalization of a natural childhood experience' and held chickenpox parties for her kids. Is this proof that medicine is a big scam?

So's "planet". We changed the cutoff, now Pluto's not a planet anymore. But Szasz isn't out there declaring astonomy a fraudulent undertaking.

That's essentially how any scientific epistemology is built, and psychiatry is just one more discipline that uses it.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:10 PM   #140
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Massimo Pigliucci made a good point... the 'hard' sciences are actually about subject matter that is easy to study. The objects maintain their properties over time, and aren't self aware enough to be able to defeat the experiment.

In contrast, the soft sciences are about very complex systems that can change, and worse - willfully compromise the experiment... this actually makes them the 'hard' sciences, in that they're much more difficult and therefore 'hard'.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:15 PM   #141
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
The social scientists aren't more prone to woo, their cranks are most capable of getting media attention, let's not get that mixed up. There are more social science woos compared to crank physics woos? No...
That's a good point - people are interested in controversies about things they think they can have an opinion about. This is why we paradoxically have low interest in economic models - we don't understand them, so pretend they are not relevant. Meanwhile, we have strong opinions about babies and crocodiles in lakes, because we're familiar and comfortable with the concept of family.

And we all have a mind, so everybody's pretty sure they know about as much as a sociologist or psychologist. We all live in a society, so we have opinions about politics. We all have a body, so we have opinions about our joints and teeth and what people should eat to lose weight. News about findings in these fields is of interest to us.

Subatomic particles... not so much. So when a crackpot declares he's discovered a new subatomic particle - calls it a crouton - in his bathtub, it's not making the same splash in the news-o-sphere as the new model of shake weight.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 21st June 2016 at 01:17 PM.
blutoski 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:18 PM   #142
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post

As I recall, the primary difference between the "hard" and "soft" sciences is the ability to perform controlled experiments to test hypotheses; and the objectivity of observational data in general. There is far more room for subjective interpretation of data in the "soft" sciences; and sociology is one of the worst for outright subjectivity.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 21st June 2016 at 02:06 PM.
luchog 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
Old 21st June 2016, 01:31 PM   #143
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Begs the question, as you recall from who? The only hard and soft I remember was in tai chi class not philosophy of science.
Joey McGee 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
Old 21st June 2016, 02:53 PM   #144
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,627
one post at a time
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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
Old 21st June 2016, 03:33 PM   #145
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,175
I'm a little curious about the repeated claim that Tylenol has been removed from the market. *High dose* acetaminophen formulations have been removed, but regular strength acetaminophen is still perfectly available. So where's this idea that it's been removed from the shelves coming from?
deadrose 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
Old 21st June 2016, 04:38 PM   #146
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
I think that this is a misinterpretation of the 2010 Johnson & Johnson children's product recall
Reality Check 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
Old 21st June 2016, 05:38 PM   #147
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
I'm a little curious about the repeated claim that Tylenol has been removed from the market. *High dose* acetaminophen formulations have been removed, but regular strength acetaminophen is still perfectly available. So where's this idea that it's been removed from the shelves coming from?
The publicity around the removal of the high dose tablets led to a sharp decline in their sales overall. This is all stated in the evidence provided, which also shows the corresponding sharp increase in aspirin use as people returned to it.

I'm just copying what the links note - I'd never even heard of Tylenol.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 05:43 AM   #148
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
FWIW, anecdotally local doctors haven't recommended literal aspirin to me or my wife for years. NSAIDS are more common than tylenol, but ibuprofin seems to be the favorite. She just was recommended that at a prescription 800mg dose after surgery, when she said she wasn't in enough pain for opiates.
Pup 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 01:57 PM   #149
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
 
recursive prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,481
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Quite a bit. He's a crank stuck in a half-century-plus-old model of psychiatry which is dominated by now-discredited Freudian psychoalalysis, and refuses to acknowledge the tremendous advances in neuroscience and neurochemistry that have demonstrated a physiological basis for many mental disorders, which he continues to deny are true disorders. He's a classic example of how even the well-educated can fall into woo beliefs, particularly beliefs they make up themselves.
Did you read "Ceremonial Chemistry?" That was my intro to Szasz back in the seventies. I was impressed enough that I read a few of his other books. In retrospect some of them, like "The Myth of Madness," were pretty far out there, but then so are some of the tenets of modern psychology imho. I also wasn't aware of Szasz's connection to scientology, but as Calebprime pointed out it was tenuous at best.

Oh, and do you have any point you're trying to make, Joey, with your 'flock together' comment?
__________________
Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Last edited by recursive prophet; 22nd June 2016 at 02:45 PM.
recursive prophet 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 02:20 PM   #150
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,825
Originally Posted by recursive prophet View Post
Did you read "Ceremonial Chemistry?" That was my intro to Szasz back in the seventies. I was impressed enough that I read a few of his other books. In retrospect some of them, like "The Myth of Madness," were pretty far out there, but then so are some of the tenants of modern psychology imho. I also wasn't aware of Szasz's connection to scientology, but as Calebprime pointed out it was tenuous at best.

I read several of them back in the '80s, I forget which ones aside from The Myth of Mental Illness, I'm fairly sure Heresies was one of them. Even then I could see the glaring flaws in his assertions; and it was painfully clear that the guy was a nutcase. Mind you, that was a time when I actually believed in a bunch of the pseudoscientific medical woo that was popular at the time (thanks to my parents), so that should give some idea of just how far "out there" he was.

What tenets of modern psychology do you consider "out there" that aren't already well known as fringe pseudoscience?
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 22nd June 2016 at 02:23 PM.
luchog 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 02:37 PM   #151
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I read several of them back in the '80s, I forget which ones aside from The Myth of Mental Illness, I'm fairly sure Heresies was one of them. Even then I could see the glaring flaws in his assertions; and it was painfully clear that the guy was a nutcase. Mind you, that was a time when I actually believed in a bunch of the pseudoscientific medical woo that was popular at the time (thanks to my parents), so that should give some idea of just how far "out there" he was.

What tenets of modern psychology do you consider "out there" that aren't already well known as fringe pseudoscience?
I have no problem with critiques of the fringe therapies - there are plenty of them out there. They drive the majority of psychiatrists nuts, because they are often high profile and cast the profession in a poor light because hasty generalization is a pretty commonly deployed fallacy. I think those are legitimate skeptical targets. Elizabeth Loftus is a personal hero of mine.

But what confuses me is why some people make the hasty generalization from psychiatry quacks to psychiatry in general, but don't make the same error with, say, going from Burzynski's cancer quackery to saying oncology in general is a sham.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 04:25 PM   #152
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
But what confuses me is why some people make the hasty generalization from psychiatry quacks to psychiatry in general, but don't make the same error with, say, going from Burzynski's cancer quackery to saying oncology in general is a sham.
Your "hasty generalisation" is my "overwhelming evidence", so that's a moot point.

Why are the comparisons invalid?

The lunatic fringe of cancer treatment is not from within the oncology.

Burzynski has never been an oncologist, has never been employed by a reputable organisation and none of his products are licensed.

The lunatic fringe of psychiatry is from within psychiatry.

There's a whole other thread that starts with the proven fact that large swathes of the psychiatric industry lied about suicidal thoughts and antidepressives. Comparing a deliberate industry-wide fraud to a quack operating outside recognised medicine is nonsense.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 05:04 PM   #153
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's a whole other thread that starts with the proven fact that large swathes of the psychiatric industry lied about suicidal thoughts and antidepressives.
That seems to be a lie, The Atheist, since the only thread I have seen on the subject is yours with the sensationalist title of Big Pharma Lie #162: "No link between drugs and suicide" where the OP starts with misleading readers about a news article.
Antidepressants raise risk of suicide - study
Quote:
The review of 70 trials of the most common antidepressants, involving more than 18,000 people, found they doubled the risk of suicide and aggressive behaviour in under-18s.

The article and study not give evidence that "Drug companies" lied about the link as I pointed out:
14 June 2016 The Atheist: How many drug companies misreported suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts events in the paper that the news article you cited reported on?

For everyone else: All The Atheist had to do was count to 1 .

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd June 2016 at 05:06 PM.
Reality Check 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 05:50 PM   #154
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Your "hasty generalisation" is my "overwhelming evidence", so that's a moot point.

Why are the comparisons invalid?

The lunatic fringe of cancer treatment is not from within the oncology.

Burzynski has never been an oncologist, has never been employed by a reputable organisation and none of his products are licensed.

The lunatic fringe of psychiatry is from within psychiatry.
That is an important distinction. Those who prefer to make invalid comparisons like that are merely engaging in unfair debating instead of discussing the subject at hand. For them, the debate is more important than seeking truth.

Perhaps you need to keep in mind that psychiatry is till embryonic when compared to, say, cardiology. The subject organ of psychiatry is unfathomably complex. Research and experiments are difficult and often impossible due to ethical concerns. After several false starts indulging in non-scientific introspective (e.g.:Freud) approaches, the science of the mind is only recently on the track of the physiology and chemistry of the brain. There is a long way to go.
Nevertheless, I do agree that there is reason to believe that too much treatment is often prescribed when evidence of efficacy and safety is relatively lacking -- especially for children. The standards of this evidence is far below the standards for other areas of medicine.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 07:34 PM   #155
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That seems to be a lie,...
No.

It's 100% correct and the fact that you keep trying to paint it as a lie is quite telling.

In black & white, amigo - these are not my words, but the conclusion of a meta-analysis of drug studies:

Quote:
...the scientists concluded pharmaceutical companies had regularly misclassified deaths and suicidal actions or thoughts in people taking antidepressants to "favour their products".
You cannot get any clearer than that.

So now, as always, you're free to pluck a different interpretation out of your nether regions (again) and post it.

You will not, however, change the facts that are there for normal people to check for themselves.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
That is an important distinction. Those who prefer to make invalid comparisons like that are merely engaging in unfair debating instead of discussing the subject at hand. For them, the debate is more important than seeking truth.
Time honoured poisoning the well fallacy. One thing about True Skeptics, they always know how to play logical fallacies really well.

Take the post I replied to - call me a liar often enough and someone will believe it, in spite of the fact that the evidence clearly shows his premise to be false.

It is bloody amusing that they expect their cherry-picked science to be believed in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Perhaps you need to keep in mind that psychiatry is till embryonic when compared to, say, cardiology. The subject organ of psychiatry is unfathomably complex.
Yep, I've admitted that - it is a tricky subject. That is no excuse for making the same mistakes decade after decade.

And that's without mentioning the overt dishonesty rife in the industry.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Research and experiments are difficult and often impossible due to ethical concerns. After several false starts indulging in non-scientific introspective (e.g.:Freud) approaches, the science of the mind is only recently on the track of the physiology and chemistry of the brain. There is a long way to go.
And at the pace the industry moves at, it's going to be a long, long journey.

As to testing & ethics, I think that's more of a red herring than reality. How many members of the esteemed profession are backing Prof Nutt? It doesn't even matter whether he finds useful drugs; at least he's trying a different tack to the one that keeps failing, or at best making tiny, incremental improvements.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Nevertheless, I do agree that there is reason to believe that too much treatment is often prescribed when evidence of efficacy and safety is relatively lacking -- especially for children. The standards of this evidence is far below the standards for other areas of medicine.
That's pretty well summed up.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 09:26 PM   #156
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No.
The assertion in that OP is obviously a lie to anyone reads the study rather than relying on what a reporter says and who can count to 1:
14 June 2016 The Atheist: How many drug companies misreported suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts events in the paper that the news article you cited reported on?

Someone might even read what I quoted from the study on 14th June 2016:
Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports
Quote:
Results We included 70 trials (64 381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18 526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.
Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.
Someone might read the entire news article and see a response from 1 company (guess who, The Atheist?)
Quote:
A spokesman for Eli Lilly said: "No regulatory authority has ever determined that Lilly withheld or improperly disclosed any data related to these medications. Put simply, our goal is to make life better for people around the world, and Lilly is committed to sharing the results of our clinical trials and ensuring this information is available to the people who need it."

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd June 2016 at 09:33 PM.
Reality Check 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
Old 22nd June 2016, 11:07 PM   #157
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The assertion in that OP is obviously a lie to anyone reads the study rather than relying on what a reporter says and who can count to 1:
Sorry mate, but anyone who reads it will see the same words I quoted in large red letters.

Let me think - who is correct: a meta-analysis of many studies or one bloke on the internet who is not a doctor or even employed in the medical industry?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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
Old 23rd June 2016, 10:08 AM   #158
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Your "hasty generalisation" is my "overwhelming evidence", so that's a moot point.

Why are the comparisons invalid?

The lunatic fringe of cancer treatment is not from within the oncology.

Burzynski has never been an oncologist, has never been employed by a reputable organisation and none of his products are licensed.
Nevertheless, the Texas College of Physicians and Surgeons has repeatedly approved his behavior. They refused to discipline him, saw no justification for pulling his license. They say what he's doing is just fine, and have done nothing to stop him for 30+ years. It has taken a political act of government to curtail him, politicians outside the medical profession are needed to obtain appropriate results.

Is this a failure of Medicine that marks it as a fraud?

I also brought up my GP, who was a chiropractor. The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons is fine with it. Does that make medicine a failed enterprise?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 23rd June 2016, 10:14 AM   #159
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
That is an important distinction. Those who prefer to make invalid comparisons like that are merely engaging in unfair debating instead of discussing the subject at hand. For them, the debate is more important than seeking truth.
I'm not sure if that's intended as a shot at my participation?

I'm trying to identify why similar problems in other fields don't trigger the same concerns. In Critical Thinking, it's called Argument From AnalogyWP, and is a legitimate approach to argument analysis. When we find disanalogies, we can identify what factors are explicitly in play and better define the argument premises and structure.



Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Perhaps you need to keep in mind that psychiatry is till embryonic when compared to, say, cardiology. The subject organ of psychiatry is unfathomably complex. Research and experiments are difficult and often impossible due to ethical concerns. After several false starts indulging in non-scientific introspective (e.g.:Freud) approaches, the science of the mind is only recently on the track of the physiology and chemistry of the brain. There is a long way to go.
Nevertheless, I do agree that there is reason to believe that too much treatment is often prescribed when evidence of efficacy and safety is relatively lacking -- especially for children. The standards of this evidence is far below the standards for other areas of medicine.
I'm approaching it from a different angle - that there's an idee fixe about psychiatry. Take the example of Autism that started this thread... it's not actually a psychiatric condition. It's (mostly) a genetic condition, squarely in the purview of Medicine. So why is Psychiatry in the firing line instead of medical genetics? Genetics hasn't found a cure for Autism either.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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
Old 23rd June 2016, 03:06 PM   #160
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sorry mate, but anyone who reads it will see the same words I quoted in large red letters.
Let us actually think about what we read, The Atheist.
Who is likely to be correct:
  • A bloke on the internet who cannot tell the difference between what a reporter wrote (and highlights that text!) and a scientific study?
  • A bloke on the internet who cites and quotes the abstract of meta-analysis of many studies that the reporter is reporting on?
14 June 2016 The Atheist: How many drug companies misreported suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts events in the paper that the news article you cited reported on?

24 June 2016 The Atheist: Even easier for you, this is the relevant part of the abstract: "In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete."

The reporter wrote the incorrect statement: After comparing clinical trial information to actual patient reports, the scientists concluded pharmaceutical companies had regularly misclassified deaths and suicidal actions or thoughts in people taking antidepressants to "favour their products".
  • There was only 1 company listed that misclassified events - Eli Lilly.
  • The actual conclusion of the paper was:
    Quote:
    Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd June 2016 at 03:19 PM.
Reality Check 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.