[cardguy]

I dunno' what your philosophy of science is - but this is the one I subscribe to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

Which can be summed up pretty simply.

Just because science says something is true. It is incorrect to think it could not be overturned tommorrow by a newer discovery.

And equally - just because something isn't proven by science. Doesn't mean that some kind of proof for it will not be discovered tomorrow.

And lastly - some things may be true. And may never be proved by science at all. Either due to lack of ingenuity, oversight or because it is too difficult for science to find a way of proving it.

Now - I use the word 'proof' as a short-hand for the theory with the biggest consensus in science, which has yet to be overturned by an experiment. I know that proper scientists don't think in terms of proof.

---------------------------

Now - this might seem pretty arcane stuff. Except that too many people are risking their brains (which once damaged can never be fixed) due to a mistaken belief in the power of science.

'First, do no harm', for two thousand years, was the guiding principle of western medicine.

And - when people take powerful psychiatric drugs - they are gambling that the drugs work in the way they have being promised. And that the scepticism of pessimistic meta-induction (as detailed above) will not turn out to be relevent in their case. This is truly a case of playing Russian Roulette with your brain.

The tide is finally turning against psychiatry and the 'medical-industrial complex'. There have being a bunch of articles recently speaking out against this. Such as the following in yesterday's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/m...tal-health

But - I want to ut up this post since I want to pass along the latest column by my favourite writer, Peter Hitchens.

As always with his work - he goes over fascinating details that most others are too lazy to look up. A nice example in the article below is the fact that the inventor of lobotomies was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1949.

As a worthy recipient of the The Orwell Prize for journalism - Peter Hitchens has always being fiercely independetly minded. And in the coming years - I am convinced he will be proved correct again.

Can Medical Science be Utterly Wrong? Yes, It Can.

I just want to share this since I find it interesting when acccepted truths are dismantled. Since once those truths are dismantled, people have a tendency to forget that they ever believed otherwise.

'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - Arthur Schopenhauer

[cardguy]

For the sake of completion - I will pass along these two articles (I have mentioned them before). They are the best overview of this area I have come across.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives...tion=false

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives...sychiatry/

[cardguy]

Peter Hitchens gives an even shorter overview of his concerns in his latest weekly column.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...igger.html

Here are the key extracts from a book he has being covering on his blog:

Quote:

He has spoken to a wide selection of experts.

And he shows that most of what we believe about modern mental health medicine is wrong.

I plan to put a much longer review on my blog, but in the end the book’s the thing. You will gasp with amazement at the sheer nerve of the medical profession, as you turn its pages. Here is what it shows:

There is no objective scientific diagnosis (and so no objective treatment) for almost all so-called mental illnesses.

They are defined every few years by a committee, which once described homosexuality as a sickness (and now doesn’t).

It is currently seriously considering creating an illness called ‘Complicated Grief Disorder’, for those who grieve over a bereavement for more than six months.

There is no scientific proof, repeat, none at all, repeat none whatever, for the idea (still believed by millions) that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, though this is the whole basis for most antidepressant prescriptions.

Drug companies control the research into their own products. They fail to publish results that suggest their pills don’t work. They doctor results to make their pills look better than they are.

In most cases, there is no significant difference in effect on depression between antidepressant pills and dummy sugar tablets. But the pills do have potent side effects (often these are most radical when people stop taking them, which is why they should only be given up under medical supervision).

Government regulation of this behaviour is feeble.

Many of the medical experts who recommend these pills, in the media and to other doctors, receive large fees from the drug companies, without disclosing this. Many medical journals gain substantial income from large orders for reprints, which come from the drug companies.

The profits from this industry are colossal.

Doctors who fail to toe the line lose valuable consultancy work, and in one case a leading psychiatrist had the offer of a major professorship withdrawn after he delivered a lecture criticising antidepressants.