Science is not God

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Buddha1, Oct 27, 2005.

  1. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Science is not god. Does God tell you what the physical universe is like?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    So and what about astronauts spacewalking in open space?
    To the left is the Earth, in front is the Sun and to the right is the Moon, stars all around.
    That would not be possible without the technology we have.
    If you want a cave - please, no one prohibits, but I choose the technology to see and hear beyond this planet and time.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Up until recently I have been the main sciforums member arguing (in this thread) that mental illness can be a real, biological problem, and that there is some real evidence to support this.

    Duendy, you have demonstrated that you lack basic knowledge in this area - apart from the conspiracy theories and anti-psychiatry stance you have taken.
    If you were asked a range of questions regarding even the most basic of facts about the brain, the way it is known to work, or the problem of suicide, I am confident you would find it very difficult to answer with any accuracy without doing research which goes outside the material you rely on.
    I'm not denying that there are a lot of problems with our society - I think there ARE a lot of problems with our society, but I think that part of helping to change them and improve things involves more understanding as to how and why people think, feel and behave the way they do.

    I don't think we are going to get anywhere arguing about this, so without conceding any kind of defeat I would simply like to reassure you that my goal in my career is to provide people who are suffering (Whether it be from biological or psychological problems) with support, education, empathy and understanding, so that I may help them to help themselves overcome some of their problems and lead a happier, healthier life.

    Given the credible information I and other members have posted in this thread as to the real nature of biological mental illness, and the suffering and suicide it causes, I feel it would be insensitive to deny them of the right to choose whatever treatment they think will help them.
    It would ALSO be wrong to deprive those (who are non-violent and capable of making decisions) of their rights.

    It's not my desire to stigmatise people as "normal" and "abnormal", hey I've known I'm not "normal" for over 10 years now. A lot of people find that understanding their true nature really helps.

    It does concern me that people have been detained in psychiatric facilities against their will, and the issue of violence and suicide will continue to be a complex and emotional issue for humanity for a long time.

    Of course you don't have to accept anyones opinion of you or anyone else - that is a basic human right and you and everyone else (who is non-violent) has the right to make decisions about their lives, and i will defend that right.

    We may also have quite different views about the nature of life and conciousness and they way it should be viewed and thought of, and you are perfectly entitled to believe that conciousness is not contained in matter - besides we have yet to explain a lot of things about matter and physics and energy etc.

    Whilst I remain critical of destructive aspects of society - corrupt, lying politicians, the military, war, abusive corporations, and exploitative and abusive religion AND science - just like you do -
    I value all non-destructive aspects of society, including art, music (my 3 parents and the people i live with are all musicians), bricklaying, farming, teaching, positive aspects of religion (support, charity, unity etc) as well as science and many more.

    I for one will be standing up for the rights of people (who are non-violent and capable of making their own informed decisions), and I will probably not be qualified to write prescriptions for medications anyway.
    I will always be looking to discern between those who can be helped with counselling - without any kind of psychiatric treatment, and those who I will need to refer to a psychiatrist I trust. I will make sure that that treatment is helping, and doesn't make their lives any shittier than it already is.

    Despite the fact that in a small proportion of smokers, marijuana can trigger and exacerbate mental problems such as depression, anxiety, and psychosis, I am not against the decriminalisation of marijuana, just in favour of proper unbiased education on marijuana and other drugs, and support for those with problems.

    So in conclusion, although we will always disagree on a lot of these things, we are both entitled to our opinions, and i aim to complete my education and training so that i can be a competent professional capable of empathy, compassion, understanding, and respect for peoples rights and choices.

    Let me reassure you that my aim is not to cause people suffering but to help them help themselves to acknowledge, understand, and overcome some of their problems so they can lead happier healthier lives.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    As far as suicide is concerned the majority of cases reflect the sickness of the society which makes lives for people unbearable + maybe other outside factors that do the same (e.g. a crippling disease), rather than any biological mental illness that they may have.

    Corrspondingly, who needs a cure is the society rather than the individual. The indiviudla can at best be helped to develop mechanisms to reduce the harm that the society does to him/ her --- which is something that psychology is unable to do, because it's basic goal is to fit human beings into 'social norms' without caring about the validity of these norms.
  8. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    The physical aspect of life is not separate from God or nature --- as you may see it. The mistakek science makes is to see it in isolation from other important aspects of nature.

    Easrtern religion tells us that the physical world is an illusion, but that's a 'spiritual' matter. I guess science is equally emphatic about dismissing the spiritual world.
  9. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Buddha1 can you back up your statement about suicide with any evidence? Or is it something you just assumed?
    I agree that the difference in suicide statistics for males and females from different countries could be largely an issue of culture, and problems with society: the highest rates for males are in cold northern asia and northern europe - but data also shows the incidence of suicide varies greatly between seasons in this country indicating that the weather (and possibly seasonal affective disorder) plays a large role.
    For females the highest suicide rates in the world are in China (and we all know how females are valued in China) so yes I would agree that society has a large bearing on it - but I also believe that antidepressants (and other medications), therapy, and social and professional support also play a large role in reducing suicide rates.

    I do also believe that psychology can play a role in reducing the harm society does to sensitive people - for example those with low self-esteem and social anxiety.
    Do you think that those with low self-esteem and social anxiety should just be left to suffer, without anyone trying to help them to be more confident and less frightened of social judgement and social situations?
  10. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Huwy, you ar DETERMINED to beliefve that mental illness is a biological disease. I have argued against it, offered links, given you th email address of Fre Baughman MN who is VERY passionate andproficient at exposing the myth of mental illness. Again and again i have encouraged ytou to contact him, for i feel yo would respect the knowledge andopinion of a Neuroscietist more than an artist...? Yet you keep coming back claiming to 'help' people but still beliving in themyth.....?

    Why do you cling to this myth?? you calim i dont know te simplest answers to questions about it? Iam honest. i hand you over to those who DO. This is a very interdisciplinary subject. my research about it is far and wide, maybe even more so than Baughman, though he will have more in-depth knowledge about the actual disiplineof menal health, i also look at myth, politics, etc tc. seeing patterns that corroborate the reasons why this myth came about and is maintained.

    so again i am asking YOU this specific question. forget the rest and answer tis, cause you keeps dodgin it. WHY wont you contact Baughman??????
  11. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    I think I will contact Fred Baughman, but I was flat out with exams and now I'm looking after my little brother who is very sick. When he's better I'll think about contacting him.
  12. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Sorry to hear about your little Brother Huwy. Hope he gets well soon.
  13. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    I partially take that back. This Dr. Fred Baughman has some very interesting and correct points, but after reading the second web page you offered (the refuting emails) I see why you so avidly attack scientific foundation.

    But you are both slightly wrong there. You both make the mistake of dismissing all psychology just because pop science--materialistic science--is horribly wrong. The sole purpose of psychology is not to determine who is normal and abnormal in society. The sole purpose of psychology is to figure out how the brain works. Anyone who thinks differently, whether or not they have a doctorate, is wrong. But, as you and the doctor have stated over and over, a large chunk, perhaps even the majority of researchers and psychiatrists (at least in this nation) have deluded themselves in tradition and/or money. They don't see the difference between "personality and pathology" as it were.

    Also, you're attacks on materialistic science are just that. You often tend to mistake credible science with this materialistic popscience that is buried in tradition. You dismiss the ideas of those who disagree with you without even trying to understand what they are talking about. You are not, nor ever will be, entirely correct. It would be good to listen to others for a change, whether or not you think they are correct. You can still learn something from someone even if they are completely wrong.

    there are many, many different circumstances that can cause a change in the structural and/or functional state of the brain. It has been proven that physical lesions in the brain will damage/change the state of the mind. It has been proven that growths in the brain will change the state of the mind. It has nearly been proven that organic or inorganic (virii) agents can change the state of the mind. The last is a little more sketchy because it is a much more complex process. Falling down some stairs and having a concussion can damage brain cells and change the state of the brain. A growing tumor in the brain can damage brain cells and distort regions of the brain to change the state of the mind.

    In fact, living can damage the brain and cause a change in the state of the mind. This is how we learn, experience, develop personalities, etc. It is all directly connected. Any damaging of the brain can change the personality of the person slightly. And this is a physical change. All our lives, the neurons in our brains are dying. These neurons die depending on how often we use them. The neurons less used will die. But this is not how it always is. Due to genetic differences, everyone's brain 'acts' differently. Some groups of neurons are favored over others and are therefore used more.

    There are many things acting on the brain that can potentially cause what some people view as 'mental illness'. I dislike the term mental illness myself because it conveys a sense of abnormality or disfunction. While it is true that the characteristics associated with these 'abnormalities' are at the very ends of the bell curve, it does not mean they are disfunctional. Many of the greatest minds could be proven to have mental illnesses, and perhaps that is why their minds were great; because they were different. It is my view that the next step in human evolution--what we are now at the beginning of--is extreme differentiation. Obviously we are going to see 'abnormalities' in personality and therefore brain structure.

    There is no normal, there is only differentiation and similarity between those differences. There is no abnormal, there is only differentiation. Personality is a testament to all of this.

    Yes, more or less. You are correct here. The real cause to most mental disorders is society itself, or at least the parents that raised the child. Often the genes of the person with the disorder cause their mind to be more susceptible to catalists of extreme differentiation. Catalists such as the environment they grow up in, or lesions of the brain, or diseases contracted.

    But there is the question of what to do with these people. There are many people with extreme differentiation to the point that they are harmful to other people. Most of modern psychology is spent wondering what to do with them, rather than how to prevent them. It should not be this way.
  14. duendy Registered Senior Member

    YES, Roy, let us start with it should should not be this way. thats a good place to start......
    te reason i may seem --to you--not listening to what you say--your links say--etc., is nt because i have a onetrack mind about tis. its tat i have heard the opposin arguments and justfications and apologetics before----NOT tat i am claiming you are particularly justifying, for i can sense with you a flexible mind--not bein paronizn i hope--as this debate lengthens...

    I try to keep as non specialist as poss, cause i see danger in over specialization. if anythingte '''new' science as it were has to be interdisciplinary....Ecology certainly has to be so, so also must understanding of human nature....

    i think you might agree that we humans are extraordinarily sensitive......haha...that term 'scnstive' canbe a dirty word in this culture. what is pushes for respect is a entrepreneurial, cut-throat approach to life....rthe poor are supposed to 'go or it' bla REALITY meanwhile it is a pile of crap and ytu knows it and i knows it---tho i dont want to talk for you

    the stakes are against manyman people in tis winners and losers stage-set. ...THAT is the myth. he paradigm. ...generally psychologists' job is to fit the citizen into that....there isno understand ing of Nature and split FROMNature on many levels, and etc etc. .....ecopsychology i believe attempts to fill that gap. but how many people could AFFORD THAT IF TEY WANTED IT....AND WHAT ABOUT TE PERSON STUCK IN A GRIM HOUSING ESTATE, OR THE MIDDLE CLAssIAN STUCK IN SOULESS SUBURBS ETC?....oooops soz just looked up and saw caps. i am not shouting i dont think. tho is could be a fruedian tyo...hehe

    when you see thru something or are exploring seeing through t, theres no turnin back. you can carry on with teold BS
  15. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    Duendy, why might you think that the treatment of such cultures by modern society has any bearing at all on the scientific validity of their worldview?

    Also, just to clarify, do you deny that:
    Alzheimers is a mental illness?
    The British Medical Journal represents "REAL science"?
  16. duendy Registered Senior Member

    does your bible diagnose 'clinical depression' as a biological disease?
  17. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    The BMJ is not my bible. I pointed you towards an article from it because you claimed that I was speaking subjectively and without scientific support when I said that: "schizophrenia has a hereditary component, and can also correlate with drug abuse".

    Depression has many causes, although it seems to be somewhat related to serotonin levels in the brain. Will the attitude of BMJ-published scientists to clinical depression affect your classification of them? Do you regard publications as genuinely scientific only if they support your opinions?

    True, actions are not divorced from worldviews, but nor do actions determine their validity. Would Einstein's theories become invalid if it emerged that he drowned kittens? Would the phlogiston theory of combustion have been proved if its proponents had been mistreated by "hostile bullying invaders, colonialists,slavetraders, exploiters"?

    If you think these questions are absurd, good! So do I. The morality (or immorality) of our behaviour has no bearing on the veracity of our science.
  18. duendy Registered Senior Member

    yes you have your theories an i have mine. i trustmine for manyreasons. for a kick off, the very fact that BushCo want totest every child, woman and mad for 'mental illness; is a big fuker of a hint summat aint me. not you of course. so i go wid my instincts...i see patterns

    it is asto you havejust come to tis dicsssion Liaka. nuthin me nor< Baughmann, nor Szasz, ...anything we throw at ya will convince ya. so whatcan i say?...blieve the myth if you must. you have madeyour mind up......and as long as it is prolonged, more people will be diagnosed wth 'mental illness and drugged, and harmed, and more andmore children too.....and the actuall oppressive culture is convenient;ly ignored in this age of druggin

    as for you opinion materialistic science has nothing to do with peoples behaviour. that is absurd. it is the MYTH, and myth is worldview.
  19. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    So if hallucinations aren't enough for you, where would you draw the line between a valid (but unusual) personality type and a genuine illness?

    As I have asked a couple of times already, do you deny that alzheimers is a mental illness?
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2005
  20. duendy Registered Senior Member

    yes. you seem to feel you have mecornered dont you, hence your pushin tis. as tho if i say eah or nay i isdamned?....hah. not that simple--if my intition isright. actually my Uncle was diagnosed with it several years back.
    i am not so pretentios to say i know all abot it, or not humble enough to ask someone who MAy be able to inform me. someone i can trust. i have thus contacted DrBaughman to see his opinion

    i dont have to repeat do i--preempting your proabable repost 'why not trust your British Medical handbook? well hun i d rather not for many more reasons i have time to go into right now.
  21. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    the problem in our society with describing differences in the brain is that it connects two sciences, biology (anatomy) and psychology. Personality is dependant upon the structure and chemical makeup of the brain and the same works vice versa. A certain personality, over time, will change the structure and levels of certain chemicals in the brain and a certain structure of the brain will change the person's personality over time. It cannot be described only as a biological disease (or disorder) nor only as a psychological disorder, but rather an interaction between both.
  22. duendy Registered Senior Member

    as i say. we cant look at human life or ANY life as the sum of chemicals or elctrical activity....what as in individual FEELScannot be actually measured. The Hard Problem is revealingnhow science does not understand consciousness in its entireity. Thus to blindly drug behaviours we do not understand is wrong.....You are alomst there--sorry to seem patronizing--but dont seem to get beyond te rductiveidea w are JUS chemical reactions. yes that is part of it, but certainly not ALL of it.
    what mental hygene indctrinates is a state demanded by the State. 'normalcy' as it is subjectively understood to be by the powers of an oppressive culture, which actually causes itself much of te distress we see, in individuals, other species, and Nature
  23. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Why not, have you any evidence apart from your subjective experience that counters that?

    Consciousness is a process (biochemical and electrical reactions) where brain (It can be other organs or cells too) evaluates incoming (or new, self created) information against the data that has already been stored in it. There is no need for something more to have consciousness.
    We talked about that in the consciousness thread here at Sciforums.

    Again, subjective perception, chemical induced visions, experience, etc. is not evidence.

Share This Page