Yesterday I found that the first version of
DSM-5: Thomas Szasz's ideas about
psychiatry that I had uploaded did not display well, from my
note [M37] onwards, since it spilled over its containing table.
I yesterday repaired that, and today
repaired and corrected some more, and it now displays well in Firefox
and SeaMonkey, though it still is not as I think it should be, and may
not display well if you don't have Verdana as a font on your disk (that
is the standard font for my site) or don't use Firefox or SeaMonkey.
In fact, I could make a better repair
than I did if I knew what is the cause of the problem, but as yet I
don't know, and still have to find out.
Thomas Szasz's ideas about psychiatry has been a bit corrected
and should display well in Firefox and SeaMonkey. If you are interested
in it, you should look at the latest version, and download it if it
displays well on your computer.
If and when I have prepared a better
formatted version, I will say so in Nederlog.
And if you missed them, the items
are really required reading for judging the pretensions of postmodern psychiatry
as a science or as a moral practice: It is neither a real science
nor is its practice in mental hospitals and asylums, at least, moral.
It is a pseudoscience, of which the basic problem is the same as with medical
fraud: It happens because there are people with medical degrees who are
quite capable of deceiving and abusing others for money, and it would
not exist as a problem if only psychiatrists were honest, competent
See especially the Rosenhan
experiment for how this works out in practice: It probably is
worse at present in mental hospitals than it was in the 1970ies,
because there is less money and there is less willingness to accept
And see especially Weasel words to
get a real understanding of the real methodology of postmodern
The very conscious, very artful, very
intentional use of weasel words, of fallacies, of
ambiguities, of vagueness, of innuendo, of trickery, of medicalese
terminology without empirical basis, so as to make what is in fact a
pseudoscience seem as if were a real science.
Finally, because this is a fair and
rather important point that deserves stressing:
All the criticisms I have of psychiatry, religion and marxism, which
are three subjects in which I almost totally disbelieve, though I also
know in each field some interesting authors with useful ideas, do not
imply and are not intended by me to suggest, that there are no
psychiatric, religious or marxist people who do well and/or who mean
There are good psychiatrists, priests and
marxists, in spite of the fact that the theories they practice are no
good as science, and in spite of the fact that these theories
have been much abused by others, for monetary gain or to obtain power
over others. (To put it in
religious terms, so to speak: That many Catholic priests are
hypocritical paedophiles, does not mean all are or indeed need
to be, though it does mean Catholicism is morally and
And indeed, the main problem with
each of these systems of faith is that there
are so many people working within these systems who are fundamentally
dishonest and who are out to use them to deceive or abuse others.