Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

January 10, 2013

Arguments against psychiatry
Sections
Introduction   
1. Arguments against psychiatry: My position
2. Arguments against psychiatry: Some arguments
 About ME/CFS



Introduction:

What follows is a repeat of an introductory part in a much larger file on my site, from April 2012,
DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" in which I discuss actual psychiatric prose.

The reason to repeat it is that this selection may help some, while it presently is part of over 500 Kb of html, that I am glad to say is still being downloaded rather a lot, but that probably is too long for most to read closely.

The present text is also fairly long, but there is a useful table of contents of the main parts, that you can use to move around. Most of it is repeated from the above mentioned link, and there also is an endnote.

1. Arguments against psychiatry: My position

There is a long series I wrote about the DSM-5, and the present text may be regarded as a continuation of it, but I gave up writing about the DSM after dr. Allen Frances - chief editor of the DSM-IV, emeritus professor of psychiatry, nominal opponent of the the DSM-5 - told the world that
The motives of the people working on DSM 5 have often been questioned. They have been accused of having a financial conflict of interest because some have (minimal) drug company ties and also because so many of the DSM 5 changes will enhance Pharma profits by adding to our already existing societal overdose of carelessly prescribed psychiatric medicine. But I know the people working on DSM 5 and know this charge to be both unfair and untrue.

Indeed, they have
made some very bad decisions, but they did so with pure hearts and not because they wanted to help the drug companies.

I think the truth is that "the people working on DSM 5" made some very bad - very immoral, very self serving - decisions with very corrupt hearts, and that they did so because they want to help both themselves and the drug companies, who also help them, to much higher incomes than they would have if only they were honest and moral medical men and women.

I also think
that the moral and intellectual corruption of "the people working on DSM 5" will very probably cost mllions their health and very much money, because they are going to be falsely diagnosed in the terms of a bogus "bible of psychiatry" and will be prescribed drugs that may seriously harm them and are not likely to help them much if at all [1] - while these same prescriptions will enrich the psychiatrists who prescribe them and the drug companies that sell them: being a corrupt psychiatric pusher of dangerous drugs makes the pushers and their shills billions of dollars every year.

Also, I think dr. Frances knows this very well indeed, since this has been argued very well by the following (among many others - and it is not as if the profit motive, dishonesty, greed, egoism are motives that are hard to understand for a psychiatrist or are rare events in the US):
Anyway, after having been told that people I respect for having individual moral courage and good minds have been "unfair and untrue" to the "pure hearts" that composed the utterly rotten and completely pseudoscientific DSM-5 that evidently is meant to serve the financial interests of the drug companies and psychiatrists willing to push their pills into naive laymen in the name of medical science, I have given up on dr. Frances and any movement he is the figure head of.

Even so, the DSM-5 and corrupt psychiatrists constitute a great danger to - literally - tens of millions of persons who are naive about medicine, uninformed about psychiatry, and wiling to trust their doctors.

I am afraid that the APA and psychiatrists who are pill pushers can only be stopped by law and by huge claims of damages, for fraudulent
evidently behavior.

To spell this out:

My position is that
psychiatry is a pseudoscience that the last decades has been  purposively designed to push dangerous and medically worthless or unproven drugs into and onto naive and defenseless people in the name of medical science, and that this is to my way of thinking, that agrees with Hippocrates' primum non nocere = the prime duty of medical doctors is not to do harm, a crime that deserves criminal proceedings.

What I also say is that if this does not happen, the reason is that psychiatrists and their professional associations have succeeded in convincing the public that their pseudoscience is a real science, and that they succeeded to do so not by any rational scientific argument but by the propaganda of public relations: Loads of cleverly designed manipulative lies, deceptions, frauds, and misinformation.

And I 
quote from the article "fraud" in Wkipedia, minus the links to two notes:

In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud:

  1. a representation of an existing fact;
  2. its materiality;
  3. its falsity;
  4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
  5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
  6. the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
  7. the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
  8. the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
  9. consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff.

As a matter of logical principle it is very easy to prove that the majority of psychiatric teachings, and many psychiatric prescriptions of drugs, precisely because these claim to be based on medical science, and are meant to sell people drugs or services for money, also in view of the many different psychiatric schools, and the fundamental nearly total absence of any good really scientific evidence, cannot be other than a "fraud" in the above described sense.

2.  Arguments against psychiatry: Some arguments

As I said, the following is a repetition of part of a much longer argument, that I repeat because this may be helpful to prove psychiatrists and psychiatry fraudulent in court. Here are the sections, with clickable links:

General introduction to the following discussion
Presuppositions and rational and logical standards
    A.  Real philosophy of science
    B.  Clifford's and Voltaire's dicta + Philosophical Dictionary
    C.   Scientific Realism and Postmodernism
    D.   Pseudoscience
    E.   Weasel words, bullshit, propaganda, rhetoric

Also, I should perhaps say I am making in this text an intellectual and a moral case, not a legal case: My degrees are in philosophy and psychology, not in law.

General introduction to the following discussion

The following criticism has been written  with some background, that stands apart from my main motive to write it - and please note that I knew almost none of what follows until 2009, when I got fast internet:

That my explicitly non-psychiatric neurological illness ME/CFS, according to the WHO's classification of diseases, that apply since 1969 to this day, that I have since 1.1.1979, turned out to be a disease that since 1988 has been psychiatrically stigmatized as a medically non-existing form of suffering, that is due to a psychiatrically diseased "dysfunctional belief system", that can be cured, it is claimed, by paying psychiatrists to give one "cognitive behavioral therapy", to launder one's brain free from the notion that the medical doctors of the WHO are NOT insane and not incompetent: From what these psychiatric frauds have lied about me and - literally - millions of ill people with my kind of disease it follows logically that thousands of medical doctors, who are not psychiatrists, must be at least as insane as I am and as these millions of ill people are, if not more, since they do have medical degrees and do not claim to be ill, and insist that people like me have a real if as yet  medically  unexplained non-psychiatric disease.

This form of psychiatric insanity - to the logical effect that thousands of medical doctors who are not psychiatrists and who disagree with psychiatrists about unexplained diseases must be mad - has been introduced by psychiatrists and by  clinical psychologists, who clearly are both groups of professionals who will profit hugely from getting this scam accepted, which they did on the ground that any disease that is unexplained by real medical scientists is explained (?!?!) by the pseudoscientists who are psychiatrists, namely as "a psychiatric disorder", the patients of which are to be exclusively treated and research by psychiatrists, while the patients of this painful and exhausting disease are to be forced to work, without pay, until they have learned work discipline.

As is, these insanities and immoralities in the name of medical science are now the received notions for "treating" people with ME/CFS in Great Britain and in Holland, and have driven many ill patients to suicide.

Apart from the above main motive to force my ill body to produce this text, I write it because

      • I have - excellent - degrees in psychology and philosophy, both
        acquired while I and my ex-wife were ill with ME/CFS (after a
        bout of Epstein-Barr in January 1979).
      • I have a large website about philosophy, logic, computing and
        ME/CFS since 1996.
      • I had hoped to have an academic career in philosophy of science
        or logic, in both of which I am very well-read:
      • I can do so - unlike most people with ME/CFS - because I am gifted
        and am 62, and do not risk forced labour and forced brainwashing anymore,
        having succeeded in forcing the City of Amsterdam to that extent, with
        my site, personality and great talents.
      • I have received decades of sickening discrimination on the simple ground
        that I honestly said and believed that I have ME/CFS, as I have also been
        diagnosed with by at least four competent medical doctors, and am
        exceedingly angry about what I see as sick sadism on the part of the
        psychiatrists who manufactured this scam, against the rulings of the WHO,
        against medical morality ("first do no harm"), and against rational biomedical
        science, in the name of a pseudoscience maintained and furthered by liars,
        who play the public, the politicians and the parliament rather than face
        their competent medical colleagues. 

Presuppositions and rational and logical standards

Also, there are, next to my presupposed large knowledge of philosophy of science and logic, that I explicitly assume, having recently read tens of intellectually and morally incompetent and scientifically mostly ignorant psychiatrists and clinical psychologists on the subjects of my disease ("dysfunctional belief system"), character ("malingerer"), reputation ("somatoformer"), integrity ("liar or insane"), and motives ("wimp, laziness"), which I take as personal slander and defamation of myself and millions of others with my disease, a number of further presuppositions and criterions I will outline in the next five sections.

Backgrounds:


A.  Real philosophy of science

Since most that psychiatrists discuss or will discuss in The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis does directly relate to philosophy of science, about which psychiatrists have been lying and misleading people for several generations now, and still do so, let me provide the reader with a list of books that give the real thing, that you should know to be able to judge the poses and deceptive writings of psychiatrist on the subject of real science and on the subject of their own pseudoscience:

Real philosophy of science

Stegmuller Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschafts- theorie und Analytischen Philosophie
Bunge Treatise on Basic Philosophy:
Carnap and Gardner Philosophical Foundations of Physics.
Nagel The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation
Sneed The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics
Skyrms Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic
Howson and Urbach Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach

Real philosophy of science for beginners

Nagel and Cohen An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method
Kyburg Philosophy of Science: A formal approach
Gardner Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science

Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus

Psychiatrists, psychologists and others who have not read a good part of the above or can't handle the more formal parts of these texts should shut up about philosophy or science or the excellencies of psychiatry: They are posturing in a very immoral dishonest way, for which see my Morningstar shines a bright light on postmodernism.


B. Clifford's and Voltaire's dicta + Philosophical Dictionary

Clifford's dictum, formulated and argued by the English mathematical genius William Kingdon Clifford stems from his "The Ethics of Belief", that is highly relevant for the discussions that follow and reads thus:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone,
  to believe anything upon insufficient evidence
".

The above is also a link to the full text of "The Ethics of Belief" on my site, that also has my extensive notes on this text.

What happens when one does not abide by Clifford's dictum or is otherwise irrational or unreasonable was very well expressed by Voltaire:

  "If we believe absurdities,  we shall commit atrocities."    

This manages to diagnose the Inquisition, the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and also the cruel inanities of psychiatrists (and much more) that I have been forced to read because I am physically ill with a disease it is very profitable for them to lie about, and applies to much of psychiatrists' beliefs and acts at large, though it is true there are some sane and decent psychiatrists as well, even though the psychiatrically received doctrines are far from rational and not reasonable at all. (Patients and their rights, as will also be seen in what follows, by its absence, are the least of the worries of most psychiatrists). Also: I do have excellent degrees since decades: I am not in the dole because I could not earn well if I were healthy.

I also presume my

Philosophical Dictionary

This is on my site, and contains over 600 brief and clear definitions of the meanings of philosophical and logical terms. I include it because, unlike psychiatrists, I am quite clear about the senses of the words I use, and as it happens these matter, if only because (i) one psychiatric peculiarity, as will be amply illustrated below, is the use of impressive sounding terms from philosophy or other sciences than psychiatry in a quite new psychiatric sense, and because (ii) very much of psychiatry is best understood as - intentional or acquired - abuse of words, intentional rhetoric and verbal acrobatics, and as an evident scam to help psychiatrist earn incomes in the highest income brackets by practicing a craft that is mostly bogus, but comes with much authority derived from clever propaganda by psychiatrists and from the ignorance of the public, politicians and parliamentarians, who believe their psychiatric pretenses for lack of relevant knowledge. 


C.  Scientific Realism and Postmodernism

What I shall argue, among other things, is that

  • Modern psychiatry has all the features of postmodernism,
    none of the features of science.
     
  • Psychiatry is an art rather than a science; intellectually
    psychiatry is bad philosophy or secular theology rather than honest medical science.

My reference here is my own brief essay on the subject, that I here partially repeat in a somewhat rewritten form to have my reasons and my reasoning explicit and in one and the same file and text - and the reader should notice, and will find out below, that my own text is very much clearer and more sensible than what psychiatrists offer, when asked to reflect on the intellectual foundations of their "science" - that is not a real science but a pseudoscience, and these days comes in the full regalia of carefully crafted and twisted postmodernism:


Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism


The subject is not only large but also too complex to receive an adequate and complete treatment in these brief essays in Nederlog which are always written fast, in poverty and in some pain.

After a little thinking I have prepared, like a finger pointing to the moon, a table of contrasts and oppositions between the things I call scientific realism and postmodernism: 


Scientific  realism Postmodernism

Properties

Assumption: There is an independently existing reality that is best known by means of scientific methods and is best explained by and written in mathematics.
 
Both inside and outside the academic world careers, position, power and status are reached most easily by pretentious poses, moral delusions and general - cultural - relativism.
End: Empirically tenable testable rational explanations of natural facts, that may be used to relief human suffering and satisy human desires.
 
Cant, waffle, purple prose and moral postures that may be used to further a career for the propounders by way of the media, politics or bureacracies.

Methods

Cognitively: realism relativism
probabilistic totalitarian
objective ideological


Morally: personal emancipation social levelling
change freedom/empowerment (soi-disant)
personal and a-political political en politicised


Practically: technologically oriented power oriented
scientifically oriented media oriented
individual thinking groupthinking

One can draw other constants, stress other oppositions, or make a more refined analysis, but for the moment this should do, though I will give brief clarifications of these 9 contrasts between the methods of real science on the one hand and the modern fraudulence or delusion that is called postmodernism, and start with the two different assumptions on which they are based:

Assumption: There is an independently existing reality that is best known by means of scientific methods and is best explained by and written in mathematics.
 
Both inside and outside the academic world careers, position, power and status are reached most easily by pretentious poses, moral delusions and general - cultural - relativism.

This is the fundamental contrast, opposition and distinction, and it is that between honest people trying to find the truth, and conmen and fools who exploit and/or believe in wishful thinking.

This is also what makes postmodernism and its rhetorical techniques among politicians, bureaucrats, and the more stupid run of intellectuals: It requires no talents or knowledge whatsoever, other than knowing how to pose, pretend, deceive and manipulate, and any stance that pleases one's audience is ipso facto valid.

End:   Empirically tenable testable rational explanations of natural facts, that may be used to relieve human suffering and satisy human desires. Cant, waffle, purple prose and moral postures that may be used to further a career for the propounders by way of the media, politics or bureacracies.

This is what is directly implied by the above fundamental contrast, opposition and distinction, and indeed thus it works - where it should be noted that the postmodern target group is that of the vast so called democratic ignorant or untalented majority, who are not interested in truth,  reality, rationality or reason but in what personally pleases and flatters them and in wishful thinking, that unfailingly succeeds in believing what their mediamanipulated prejudices and desires suggest to them. 

 1 realism relativism

Science is realistic: Statements are true or not, provable or not and are or are not well supported by tested facts and/or repeatable experiments; postmodernism denies the existence of truth and serves as the propaganda of academic, political and bureacratic postmodern impostors and careerists, also strongly concerned with relativizing everything that does not serve their personal careers or incomes. 

 2 probabilistic totalitarian

Science is fundamentally probabilistic: Theories and beliefs can be rationally estimated as more or less probable on the basis of objective evidence and many things can only be investigated and represented adequately by means of statistics; postmodernism presents totalitarian ideology of freedom/empowerment centered around a so called epistemology that reduces all human beliefs and desires to the same level that can be democratically voted upon and that depends on what The Media say and The People believe, in majority, in their universal equality of all with all.

 
 3 objective ideological

Science is based on knowledge of and interest in objective facts, established by objective observers, and on repeatable experiments, established by honest experimenters; postmodernism calls this an ideology but is itself explicitly ideological and totalitarian, in a usually phony moral way: Whatever seems to oppose the postmodern rhetorics and propaganda of freedom that are presently in fashion, is postmodernisically decried as out of fashion, as lacking in solidarity, as tending to fascism (racism, sexism, homophobia etc.)

 4 personal emancipation social levelling

A very important motive of the real sciences and of real scientists is the personal emancipation of human individuals in accordance with their talents and the relief of suffering of all human beings; the postmodern freedom consists in the social levelling and equalisation of all and everyone until each is the equal or equivalent of all (except that postmodern leaders are just a little bit more equal than the rest, for which reason all well-paying jobs morally speaking ought to be reserved for them, for proper postmodernists).

 5 change freedom/empowerment (soi-disant)

Science is concerned with truly understanding reality and with finding the means to change the world in accordance with human desires, needs and interests; postmodernism is concerned with getting the best - most paying and most powerful - jobs to postmodernist academic, bureaucratic, political and journalistic careerist, by making them the most prominent Talking Heads of the day or age, and always does so by pretending To Emancipate, Liberate and/or Empower repressed women, blacks, gays and (after these all have postmodern well cushioned jobs) repressed humans of other fashionable kinds. (And this Emancipation / Empowerment in turn manifests itself -"physical 'reality' ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct" - in the enforcement of the totalitarian language and terminology that is called Politically Correct.) 

 6 personal and a-political political and politicised

Real science is oriented towards the individual emancipation of all, and is produced by the intellectually most gifted individuals, for whom real knowledge of reality is a personal instrument of civilisation, liberation and emancipation; postmodernism is oriented towards liberating all by reducing everyone - but the leaders - to the same common level of humanity that is open to even the most stupid, the most lazy and the least moral (and especially of professors of postmodern philosophy and literary "science"), in the interest of all, or so it is postmodernistically claimed.

 7 technologically oriented power oriented

Real science - and only real science - leads to real human technology: New artefacts and constructions created by humans, that as really existing things, such as medicines, apparatuses and instruments, that are useful for others also if they lack the knowledge that was necessary to create them, and without having to pray, to have faith or to have to rely on priests, clergy, shamans, or postmodern media-sophists; postmodernism is driven by the lust for power and the desire to level all except the leaders to common folks one should respect, and in the end depends on rhetorics, lies, poses and their eventual democratic success because of the ignorance of the majority and misrepresentations in the media of nearly everything (that is not fit for being understood by ignorant common men and women, who are always in democratic majority).

 8 scientifically oriented media oriented

Real scientists address mostly other real scientists to receive criticism or support ('peer review'); the postmodernists are mostly media oriented because their message is in fact populistic, levelling, canting, and directed at the average (lacks of) qualities of the masses, and is in fact directed at furthering the emancipation, careers, incomes, and media fame of postmodern leaders and their philosophical and journalistic servants.

 9 individual thinking groupthinking

A real scientist is an human individual who has both the courage and the talents to think rationally for himself; the postmodernists, from lack of talent, lack of knowledge or lack of courage reason only in terms groupthinking, and swear by democratic majorities, however much deceived and manipulated, and swear by so called equality and equivalence of all for all, always in the name of human liberation and emancipation, except in the proportionally few individual cases (like me) who oppose the moral pretenses and irrational delusions of the postmodernists, and who generally cannot find any function in postmodern politics, institutions, and universities, other than as whipping boys.

I hope this little list of contrasts and oppositions is of some help, and if you want to know more you can follow the links or go to my site, that from a postmodern point of view is a horror show composed by a kind of fascist freak. (See my 39 questions about the qualities of education and government in the Netherlands for the reasons why I was repeatedly removed from the postmodern University of Amsterdam "because of your outspoken public opinions", something that happened only to me in Holland since World War II ended.)                   ->Contents


Finally, I presuppose two lemmas from the Wikipedia, that I will partially quote to have these in the text that contain my criticisms. The first concerns the actual contents and scientific tenability of psychiatry, which is a pseudoscience as defined:

D. Pseudoscience

Quote:

The distance between pseudoscience and science is filled with protoscience (and fringe science) which can be understood from the following table:[32][not in citation given]

     Systematized as scientific definition
    Treated with scientific method
  Presented as science or looks like science  
Superstitions Pseudoscience Fringe science Protoscience Mainstream science

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2]

Karl Popper stated that it is insufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or from metaphysics, by the criterion of rigorous adherence to the empirical method, which is essentially inductive, based on observation or experimentation.[33] He proposed a method to distinguish between genuine empirical, non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical methods. The latter case was exemplified by astrology which appeals to observation and experimentation. While it had astonishing empirical evidence based on observation, on horoscopes and biographies it crucially failed to adhere to acceptable scientific standards. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

To demonstrate this point, Popper gave two cases of human behavior and typical explanations from Freud and Adler's theories: "that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child." From Freud's perspective, the first man would have suffered from psychological repression, probably originating from an Oedipus complex whereas the second had attained sublimation. From Adler's perspective, the first and second man suffered from feelings of inferiority and had to prove himself which drove him to commit the crime or, in the second case, rescue the child. Popper was not able to find any counter-examples of human behavior in which the behavior could not be explained in the terms of Adler's or Freud's theory. Popper argued that it was that the observation always fitted or confirmed the theory which, rather than being its strength, was actually its weakness.

Unquote.

"And thus it was and is until this very day", as far as the contents of psychiatry is concerned, when considered realistically, and without prejudice in favour of psychiatry.

As far as the methods of psychiatry are concerned: While psychiatrists pretend they are medical scientists (they have a medical B.A. and then specialized in their pseudoscience, very probably in most cases without really understanding at first they specialized in a pseudoscience):

It is very much a rhetorical science, full of fallacies and tricks, that cannot be rationally understood in terms of scientific method, since what methods there are that seem scientific are often only there for make-belief, and is best understood as deliberate propaganda or - for its true believers - as intellectually and morally very bad philosophy, that pretends to be informed by scientific methods, but isn't, a few small parts - Parkinson's, Azheimer's, syphilitic insanity excepted (that psychiatrists always pretend can stand as pars pro toto, which is a fallacy).   


E. Weasel words, bullshit, propaganda, rhetoric

First weasel words, the preferred method of nearly all psychiatrists I have read (a few of which may have been so unintelligent as to believe them):

-- Quote:

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated.
(..)
The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate.[2] Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made.[3] Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects".[4
(..)
The expression first appeared in Stewart Chaplin's short story "Stained Glass Political Platform" (published in 1900 in The Century Magazine),[8] in which they were referred to as "words that suck the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks the egg and leaves the shell". Theodore Roosevelt attributed the term to Dave Sewall, claiming that Sewall used the term in a private conversation in 1879.[9] Winston Churchill wrote: "The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning." Current examples include governing parties in various countries commenting upon their country's financial state with statements such as "the budget deficits we inherited" rather than specifically blaming their predecessors.

Additionally, the definition of the word 'weasel' includes: n. a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person; v. to manipulate shiftily. [10] A weasel word (or phrase) can quite likely be understood to come from a position of intending to manipulate the communication, in a sneaky or underhanded manner.

In the political sphere, this type of language is used to "spin" or alter the public's perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt argued that "one of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use ...'weasel words'; when one 'weasel word' is used ... after another there is nothing left".[11]

-- Unquote

Next, there is bullshit, a favourite psychiatric game, often played, as we shall see, by pretending a scientific subject is best discussed by metaphors and words sung apart from their meanings in the real sciences (see Sokal for other examples:

--Quote:

From "On Bullshit":
"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose."

   -- professor Harry Frankfurt, on Bullshit (<-Wikipedia)
       
My bolding and coloring.

-- Unquote

Of course the purpose of psychiatric pseudoscience is to make money, as in quackery, which is what psychiatry is, as pseudoscience and carefully crafted bullshit ever since Freud showed how to get famous and rich with psychiatric bullshit. (See also my More on Freud and psychiatry.)

And then there are two other favourite ploys of psychiatrists to get their views accepted, which are techniques at which they are much better than real scientists, who tend to speak the truth, or at least do not lie. For psychiatrists as for postmodernists, there is no truth, if not sanctioned by their professional organizations, and so there are no lies, at least not by psychiatrists: See how clever they prevent being refuted!

-- Quote:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the desired result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

--Unquote

And the "political agenda" may as well be a psychiatric one, for psychiatrists are much interested in power and control over their patients and over the ways psychiatry is publicly discussed.

Finally, psychiatrists, from Freud and Jung onwards, tend to excel in rhetoric, quite possibly not because they closely studied it, but because they are fundamentally at heart and in outlook postmodernistic bullshitters who just don't believe in "truth", and who are convinced a well-composed "narrative" is far more effective, socially and for one's career, than honest real science (which unfortunately is true if one tries to gain one's end by convincing the public of one's baloney, as has been the way of psychiatry ever since Freud got famous by provoking his contemporaries, and then soothing them by the tale that "empirical medical science" had "discovered" his fictions).

-- Quote:

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] (..) Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of
observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
[

-- Unquote.


Please note - whatever your beliefs about psychiatry are - that to understand most of my criticism you need to have some knowledge of the above sections

A. Real philosophy of science
B. Clifford's and Voltaire's dicta + Philosophical
     Dictionary
C
. Scientific Realism and Postmodernism
  
Tabular exposition
D. Pseudoscience
E. Weasel words, bullshit, propaganda, rhetoric

Besides: This should be helpful to you in also judging many other subjects than psychiatry in a rational way: There is much bullshit, deception and delusion in the human world, and there is little better than real philosophy of science to help you see through it and explain why such and such is bullshit, fraud or delusion.

Indeed, for a full appreciation of how psychiatry works in practice, you really need to consider these two references:

-   The Rosenhan-experiment - illustrating psychiatric abuse
-   Donald Ewen Cameron - ex chief of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations, and clearly a truly monstrous man, with a morally depraved mentality. (See my Corporate psychopaths - part A for what I have in mind, also with a most instructive brief video of such a one.)


Endnote: Most of the above is repeated from a much larger file on my site, from April 2012, DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" but I made today a few changes and also corrected a few typos.

Also I probably should add that I do not recommend patients without my sort of qualifications - degrees in psychology and philosophy - to start arguments with psychiatrists or medical doctors. I do recommend patients with ME/CFS to avoid psychiatrists.

The above is mostly meant for people with academic qualifications, including lawyers, to help them understand that modern psychiatry is not a moral medical science but an immoral fraud and a scam, designed on purpose to help psychiatrist  sell expensive drugs [1], and to point to some of the intellectual backgrounds to help
support this diagnosis.

---
Note

[1] Being an elderly psychologist and philosopher, who has learned nearly all of the above since he got fast internet in 2009, maybe I should warn against a confusion some may be liable to, as indeed I myself probably was, before 2009, which amounts to denying there is a real major health problem, and namely because one knows that psychiatry and psychology are not what professional psychiatrists and psychologists claim to be.

Personally, I have never taken psychiatry serious as a real science, basically because I did read Freud, Jung, Laing and some others, and decided that whatever that was intented to be, and whatever that was good for - since many people do have psychological problems, and some get thoroughly mad, and all such persons deserve some form of help, however motivated, provided it is honest and not based on false pretensions - it certainly was not real science, in the sense that physics, chemistry, biology and most of medicine other than psychiatry are real sciences.

Then again, until 2009 I never worried about psychiatry, because it seemed to me to be useful - more so than not - for at least two ends:

To help the insane, and to provide some sort of support for the neurotic, where I mean by "the insane" those who are thoroughly mad and not capable of helping themselves nor of functioning in society (without a lot of help), and by "the neurotic" those with psychological problems who can function socially, but who seek help from professionals, since they cannot find it elsewhere, and they feel miserable (anxious, fearful, nervous, unhappy etc.)

It also seemed to me, from what I knew about psychiatry and clinical psychology,  that much of that help was bound to be inept, since most of what I had read in those subjects seemed mostly false to me, but then in life one must make do with what there is rather than what there should be, while society is fundamentally an interpersonal contract for mutual help or protection.

It seems to me - after three years of reading since 2009 - that psychiatry since the DSM-III of 1980 is an intentional fraud, an intentional scam, that is meant to enrich psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies by the selling of as many psychiatric drugs as is possible, and that for this purpose the whole diagnostic machinery of psychiatry, that never was really scientific, because there was not enough knowledge about how the brain manufactures human thought and feeling, has been transmogrified into an intentional pseudoscience that is designed on purpose to look and sound as if it is medical science, but is in fact intentional bullshit designed to give psychiatrists power without social control, without being found out, and with the possibility, that comes with their having a medical B.A., to sell as many medical drugs to laymen as they can.

This is dangerous in itself, and the more since in the same period of the last 30 years the social control of the drug companies has grown much less, whereas great parts of what used to be more or less inept psychiatric attempts at science have been replaced by professional salesmanship and marketeering driven by the justified expectation of enormous profits:

Modern psychiatry, at least since the DSM-III, is not about helping people with psychological problems in an honest way, but is about selling them expensive drugs in a profitable way.

It is no longer a medical specialism, if it ever was; it is a kind of pseudo-medical public relations through public deceptions that are designed for and driven by profit, by the sales of psychiatric drugs, which since the 1980ies has become an enormously profitable industry, that lacks control precisely because psychiatry and pharmacology are difficult to understand, and because psychiatry since the DSM-III has been designed on purpose to provide psychiatrists with more power, with more patients, and with license to sell drugs for profit.

For more on this, see the above references, and for more on the DSM-5 see my
DSM-5: 100 Nederlogs  about and around the APA and the DSM-5.


About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which is a disease I have since 1.1.1979:
1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail