The Death of Sigmund Freud

[Riddley]

I have not read this book only the review (http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/gray_12_07.html) but that is rich enough soup.
What do you want to talk about?
how aboutThe fragility of the ego reflected that of civilisation itself, which rests on restraining powerful human impulses.
Or Civilisation is under continual siege, and the forces undermining it are not only instincts of aggression and destruction: they include the human longing for authority
Or Edmundson describes Freud as 'one of that breed of modern pagans who could not give up pondering rich mystery, even as they repudiated the all-knowing sky-god'.
Or There are many studies of the social and economic conditions that enable fascist and fundamentalist movements to develop. The psychological needs these movements satisfy are less often investigated, and the fact that they appeal to deep-seated human impulses is denied and repressed. Freud accepted this fact and its implications not only for politics and religion but also for the new discipline he had invented

The human longing for authority is something I find interesting.

[eugene40]

Freud was a buffon whom was occasionaly correct. He was obsessed with his mother, was on cocaine for a while and addicted to tobacco which eventually killed him.

[mataj]

Freud was a quack. He was made famous by his nephew, Edward Bernays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays), father of modern propaganda and advertising. Withouth Bernays, Freud would be justly forgotten a long time ago.

[Lumpen Prole]

Freud was wrong a lot, but a great and innovative thinker, ahead of his time, and certainly not a quack. Words such as "unconscious" would not be in our everyday vocabulary without him.

[steveksux]

Freud was wrong a lot, but a great and innovative thinker, ahead of his time, and certainly not a quack. Words such as "unconscious" would not be in our everyday vocabulary without him.
Words such as "Freudian" as well!

Randy

[mataj]

Freud was wrong a lot, but a great and innovative thinker, ahead of his time, and certainly not a quack.With thinkers such as him, no wander the old Habsburg Empire went down the tubes.

Words such as "unconscious" would not be in our everyday vocabulary without him.Yes, indeed, he contributed many words to our vocabulary, bringing epochal contribution to the progress of raillery.

[serenity]

The human longing for authority is something I find interesting.


"[The Love of Power] is disguised, among the more timid, as an impulse of submission to leadership, which increases the scope of the power-impulses of bold men."

Bertrand Russell

[steveksux]

The human longing for authority is something I find interesting.Me too, especially in response to a crisis. It seems almost like wishing you were back in childhood, where daddy was always there to protect you.

I think this effect explains a lot about how Bush became, and stayed popular as long as he did. And why Rudy was even considered a viable Presidential candidate. Both were wildly unpopular on 9/10.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt post 9/11 is one thing, and to be expected and encouraged. But it went to ridiculous lengths, and far too long given the poor performance. Took a tremendous amount of epic screwups to crack the teflon shell in Bush's case.

Randy

[USViking]

Freud was a buffon whom (sic) was occasionaly correct.
Yes.




He was obsessed with his mother,
Maybe.





was on cocaine for a while

This is an understatement.

He thought for a while that cocaine
was sort of a Philosopher's Stone
of psychological good health. He spoke
from experience both then and when
he later turned away from it.





and addicted to tobacco which eventually killed him.
Probably right.





Freud was a quack.
Yes.

However...


Words such as "unconscious" (emphasis added) would not be in our everyday vocabulary without him.
...you mean SUBconscious, don't you?

Yes, Freud was a good neologist- an inventor of new
word and phrases.

However, although such words and phrases as
"subconscious" and "Oedipus Complex" have
entered the vocabulary, to call them part of
the "everyday vocabulary" is a big exaggeration.




I do not think he contributed much if anything to science.

He is sort of the Trofim Lysenko of the study of human behavior,
which has yet to find its Gregor Mendel.

[Lumpen Prole]

Academic vocabulary. Freud has generated an incredible amount of debate (an essential part of advancement within the sciences) and completely shook the foundations for how we view ourselves. Freud challenged the idea that humans are entirely rational, that we act on motivations we aren't even aware of, and he did it at the height of the Victorian era. Einstein spent many years of his life trying to find a way to turn lead into gold, but we don't disregard relativity and call him a "quack." I am honestly baffled by what some here seem to imply. Am I to believe that someone can never be wrong about anything in order to have profound influence within a field? If someone doesn't get all the details right are we to disregard everything they ever said?

[mataj]

He is sort of the Trofim Lysenko of the study of human behavior, which has yet to find its Gregor Mendel.:clap: :thumbsup: Excellent comparsion!

Academic vocabulary.Freud's contribution to academic vocabulary is negligible compared to his contribution to disparagement vocabulary.

Freud has generated an incredible amount of debateOf course. Quacks always generate a lot of debate, because they are the loudest, most agressive and most eloquent of all. They compensate the lack of facts and substance by vast amounts of yakkety-yak.

Creationists, parapsychologists, and such generated an incredible amount of debate as well.

Freud challenged the idea that humans are entirely rational, IOW he discovered, that we are more dumb than we think we are. Oh my, what a scientific breakthrough :rolleyes:

Einstein spent many years of his life trying to find a way to turn lead into gold, but he was still a revolutionary thinker.Einstein was no revolutionary thinker. Unlike Freud's, Einstein's work was based on solid facts (primarily Michelson Morley's experiment), and existing theories. BTW, mathematics he used was developed by Lorentz, and the famous E=MC2 formula was first published by Italian industrialist and amateur physicist by the name of Olinto de Pretto. Had Einstein died in a car ... I mean tram or horse accident, others would ineviteably came to the same conclusions, most probably Lorentz or Poincare. Or maybe even De Pretto.

[USViking]

Academic vocabulary.
How has this vocabulary led to scientific advance?

Psychology claims to be a medically useful field
of study, yet it has made no headway in the
cure of mental illness and has little to no predictive
value.





Freud has generated an incredible amount of debate (an essential part of advancement within the sciences)
How has this debate led to scientific advance?

Psychology claims to be a medically useful field
of study, yet it has made no headway in the
cure of mental illness and has little to no predictive
value.





and completely shook the foundations for how we view ourselves. Freud challenged the idea that humans are entirely rational,
I doubt any scientific or philosophical school
ever viewed humans as entirely rational.





that we act on motivations we aren't even aware of,
I do not think the importance of these
is firmly established.





and he did it at the height of the Victorian era.
Why is the era important?




Einstein spent many years of his life trying to find a way to turn lead into gold, but we don't disregard relativity and call him a "quack."
Einstein did not do any such thing.

It is Isaac Newton who you are thinking of.

Newton may in fact have spent more of his career
on alchemy that he did on science and mathematics.
His efforts in the field were 100% quackery.

Newton's error does not detract from his contributions
but it is to be forever regretted that he squandered
so much of his genius.






I am honestly baffled by what some here seem to imply. Am I to believe that someone can never be wrong about anything in order to have profound influence within a field? If someone doesn't get all the details right are we to disregard everything they ever said?
It is not necessary to get every detail right to
contribute, but the question is what if anything
did Freud get right that has been truly significant?

[Lumpen Prole]

Science is largely cumulative, and Einstein's theory was based on what was known because, in contrast to the field of psychology in Freud's time, physics was already a well-established and rigorous field! Freud was one of the father's of what we call psychology today. And given that he had no formal disciple of psychology to ground his ideas, we should not find it surprising that he got a lot wrong (based on what we know today from the field of psychology).

I'm simply pointing out that throwing around insults such as "quack" are not warranted. Relativity and quantum mechanics overthrew classical physics, so was Newton a quack? Natural selection is only one of four major forces that govern evolutionary change, so was Darwin a quack? Freud got a lot wrong. So what? He helped jump-start an entire discipline, and his radical ideas paved the way for generations of psychologists to think about the human mind in new ways. You don't have to hit the nail on the the head to be important, especially when you're one of the first people to pick up a hammer.

[Lumpen Prole]

What did Freud get right that has been significant? As has already been pointed out, the very idea of the unconscious mind playing a role in human psychology.

[USViking]

Science is largely cumulative, and Einstein's theory was based on what was known because, in contrast to the field of psychology in Freud's time, physics was already a well-established and rigorous field! Freud was one of the father's of what we call psychology today. And given that he had no formal disciple of psychology to ground his ideas, we should not find it surprising that he got a lot wrong (based on what we know today from the field of psychology).

I'm simply pointing out that throwing around insults such as "quack" are not warranted. Relativity and quantum mechanics overthrew classical physics, so was Newton a quack? Natural selection is only one of four major forces that govern evolutionary change, so was Darwin a quack? Freud got a lot wrong. So what? He helped jump-start an entire discipline, and his radical ideas paved the way for generations of psychologists to think about the human mind in new ways. You don't have to hit the nail on the the head to be important, especially when you're one of the first people to pick up a hammer.
If the field of psychology had made any contributions
remotely resembling those of physics I would be
on board with it.

As it is, the field is virtually devoid of predictive and
therapeutic value.

[USViking]

What did Freud get right that has been significant? As has already been pointed out, the very idea of the unconscious mind playing a role in human psychology.
I am not sure how one would go about verifying
the importance of the unconscious.

So far the idea has contributed nothing to the
effective prediction and treatment of mental
illness.

My Psych 101 text came right out and admitted
that sponataneous remission was as common as
therapeutic remission in the treatment of emotional
problems.

Now, I should to be fair point out that the text is
over 40 years old, and the relevant section was
based on a study over 50 years old.

However, spectacular misdiangnosis in such cases
as those of the Columbine and Va. Tech perpetrators
leads me to believe the record of the so-called
psychological sciences has gotten no better.

[mataj]

Science is largely cumulative, and Einstein's theory was based on what was known because, in contrast to the field of psychology in Freud's time, physics was already a well-established and rigorous field! Freud was one of the father's of what we call psychology today. And given that he had no formal disciple of psychology to ground his ideas, we should not find it surprising that he got a lot wrong (based on what we know today from the field of psychology).There was no physics before Newton either. He hasn't even bothered invent the word for new science he established, his book was titled "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica". On the other hand, Freud invented nothing but fancy new words.

Freud never used scientific method, experimentation and observation, that is. He just speculated instead, and that means, that he is a father of a big, fat heap of authoritative horsetwaddle. His theories had never been proven.

Relativity and quantum mechanics overthrew classical physics, so was Newton a quack?Newton was never really overthrown. In everyday conditions, his theory is still accurate to at least 7 decimals. Mathematically, it's far more simple and elegant than Theory of relativity, or Quantum Mechanics. That's why it's still widely used today (metereology, mechanics, space flight, avionics, construction ...), and it will probably remain in use to the end of our civilization and beyond. I doubt anyone will be able to invent anything more simple, elegant, and useful than Newton.

Natural selection is only one of four major forces that govern evolutionary change, so was Darwin a quack? Freud got a lot wrong. So what? He helped jump-start an entire discipline, and his radical ideas paved the way for generations of psychologists to think about the human mind in new ways. You don't have to hit the nail on the the head to be important, especially when you're one of the first people to pick up a hammer.Newton based his theory on good, solid measurements. Darwin based his theory on good, solid observations, painstakingly collected and collated. Freud based his so called theories mostly on hot air and speculation. That's why insults against him are pretty much warranted. After all, Freud invented a lot of new ones, and that's his most mentionable contribution to the human culture.

What did Freud get right that has been significant? As has already been pointed out, the very idea of the unconscious mind playing a role in human psychology.What plays a role here? The idea, or unconscious mind? Does the so called "unconscious mind" exist at all? More specifically, had its existence ever been proven?

[Lumpen Prole]

I am not sure how one would go about verifying
the importance of the unconscious.

So far the idea has contributed nothing to the
effective prediction and treatment of mental
illness.

My Psych 101 text came right out and admitted
that sponataneous remission was as common as
therapeutic remission in the treatment of emotional
problems.

Now, I should to be fair point out that the text is
over 40 years old, and the relevant section was
based on a study over 50 years old.

However, spectacular misdiangnosis in such cases
as those of the Columbine and Va. Tech perpetrators
leads me to believe the record of the so-called
psychological sciences has gotten no better.

I am talking about psychology, not psychiatry, but that doesn't really matter. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you mean to tell me psychiatry is a useless field because we can't properly diagnose all mental illnesses all of the time? We can't do much to eliminate viral infections either, should we do away with virology? Neuroscience is in its infancy, and psychological disorders are by there very nature difficult to dissect. But to say that the psychological sciences are not making progress because there are crazy people in the world is just plain silly.

Let me make sure I understand everyone here. Freud was wrong on most things, but helped kick-start the field of psychology. He got people thinking about how the human mind works in brand new ways. Let us keep in mind that psychology (not to mention neuroscience) essentially did not exist in his time. In other words, there was no solid foundation from which he could develop his ideas. That is why his work was almost entirely theoretical. Humans often act more or less instinctively; we can and do act on impulses that are motivated by primal urges (sexual desire being such an urge, and the emphasis of Freud). But if helping to start an entire field of study is not important, then I agree, Freud was insignificant.

In fact, I could easily construct an argument that theories that turn out to be false are more important to science than the ones that turn out to be true. False theories are false because they got people asking questions and testing hypotheses. That is how science works. It is exactly that process that keeps scientific discovery from stagnating. If what is "right" in science is all that is important or of value, then Issac Newton was a quack physicist because quantum mechanics more accurately describes the universe (and no, I'm not talking about the practicality of using Newtonian physics, I'm talking about the nature of the universe itself).

[USViking]

I am talking about psychology, not psychiatry, but that doesn't really matter.
Psychiatry was Freud's creation, it is a branch
of psychology, and for many decades was as
prominent as any other branch.





But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you mean to tell me psychiatry is a useless field because we can't properly diagnose all mental illnesses all of the time?
I do not expect perfection in any field. I do expect
results which are better than 50-50, at least from
a field having the benefit of well over 100 years of
concentrated effort.





We can't do much to eliminate viral infections either, should we do away with virology?
We have a pretty good handle on influenza, the most
serious threat (after AIDS) of all viral infections.

Smallpox has been completely eradicated.

Polio is on the verge of eradication.





Neuroscience is in its infancy, and psychological disorders are by there very nature difficult to dissect.
Apparently so!- if one takes a good hard look
at the results, or lack of results.

And I am sure you do not mean to imply that
any scientific endeavor is easy, do you?





But to say that the psychological sciences are not making progress because there are crazy people in the world is just plain silly.
The issue is not whether the psychological sciences
have cured all the crazy people, but whether it has
cured any of them, or at least put a dent in the
numbers of the crazed.

Well, has it?

In contrast immunology has by now probably saved
over a billion lives, hematology likewise, and surgery
hundreds of millions. Surgery has also led to the full
recovery of as many millions of patients who would
otherwise have been permanently disabled.

How many lives has psychology saved, or made whole again?





Let me make sure I understand everyone here. Freud was wrong on most things, but helped kick-start the field of psychology.
I am not at all sure Freud helped kick-start anything
after looking at the Wikipedia article on "Psychology".
It seems that he jumped on the bandwagon, then
constructed his own bandwagon.





He got people thinking about how the human mind works in brand new ways.

Not good enough for me.





Let us keep in mind that psychology (not to mention neuroscience) essentially did not exist in his time. In other words, there was no solid foundation from which he could develop his ideas.
See above: "I am not at all sure Freud helped
kick-start anything..."





That is why his work was almost entirely theoretical. Humans often act more or less instinctively; we can and do act on impulses that are motivated by primal urges (sexual desire being such an urge, and the emphasis of Freud). But if helping to start an entire field of study is not important, then I agree, Freud was insignificant.
If the field is not important then its advocates are
insignificant, except negatively as when they draw
resources away from other more effective fields.





In fact, I could easily construct an argument that theories that turn out to be false are more important to science than the ones that turn out to be true.
Ridiculous.

Ptolemaic theory may have held back Astronomy
over 1000 years.

Phlogiston held back Robert Boyle.

Alchemy held back Isaac Newton.





False theories are false because they got people asking questions and testing hypotheses. That is how science works.
A recurring problem is that theory may become
so entrenched that the absense of experimental
evidence is discounted. See "lumineferous ether"
for example.





It is exactly that process that keeps scientific discovery from stagnating. If what is "right" in science is all that is important or of value, then Issac Newton was a quack physicist because quantum mechanics more accurately describes the universe (and no, I'm not talking about the practicality of using Newtonian physics, I'm talking about the nature of the universe itself).
NASA uses Newton: Newton is still good enough
to put a spacecraft through a bullseye 1 square
mile in size at a distance of the radius of the orbit
of the planet Neptune.

If Newton has ever failed for any problem in the
celestial mechanics of the Solar System except
for the recession of the perihelion of Mercury,
then please tell us about it.

[whatever]

Ridiculous.

Ptolemaic theory may have held back Astronomy
over 1000 years.

Phlogiston held back Robert Boyle.

Alchemy held back Isaac Newton.

First let me be clear that I agree with most of the things you've said here about Freud, but I would quibble that with regards to Newton, alchemy might have been the driving force that led him to discover the things he did, in other words, he set out to turn metal into Gold and discovered gravity and the law of motion instead.


Lumpen Prole, the point is not that someone who started a whole new field (something that is still in question) is not important, the point is that the field that he has jumped start may have been absolutely useless for practical purposes judging from the evidence of its use so far.


I would say this for psychology, it does have predictive power, at least from the behaviourial finance books I have studied and the few well known findings I came across, though I'm not sure that is the same as what Freud normally used in this "theories".

[Lumpen Prole]

In response to USViking, I thought I would just post links to research posted today from the "Mind & Brain" section of sciencedaily. The assertion that the related fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience are making little or no progress is both silly and willfully ignorant, and I would add that saying so is an insult to working scientists.

Drug Study For Brain Cancer Shows Promising Results (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213120952.htm)
Immune System May Target Some Brain Synapses, Researchers Find (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213121010.htm)
Putting Risk In Perspective: Do People Make Better Decisions When They Understand Average Risk? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213120942.htm)
Experts Urge Complete Global Access To Iodized Salt; Prevents IQ Loss And Brain Damage In Babies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201453.htm)
New Hope For Deadly Childhood Disease (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201333.htm)
Intensive Care Quality Of Sleep Improved By New Drug, Reports Study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201415.htm)
Overweight People More Likely To Have Bad Breath, Study Finds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213124931.htm)
Green Tea May Protect Brain Cells Against Parkinson's Disease (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101406.htm)
Early Treatment Stops Epilepsy In Its Tracks, Study Suggests (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213120931.htm)
A Drink To Healthy Aging (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101422.htm)

But I'm sure these things will turn out to be "absolutely useless."

[Lumpen Prole]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/psychiatry/

That's the link to the psychiatry section specifically. Here are the titles of the first few studies on the page:

Blood Pressure Drug May Curb Brain Damage From Alzheimer's, Depression And Schizophrenia

Excessive Tantrums In Preschoolers May Indicate Serious Mental Health Problems

Mental Illness And Drug Addiction May Co-occur Due To Disturbance In Part Of The Brain

Mice Provide Important Clues To Obsessive-compulsive Disorder

Is There A Developmental Component To The Risk For Depression?

First-ever Genetic Animal Model Of Autism


But I suppose none of these studies are of any practical use. :rolleyes:

[USViking]

First let me be clear that I agree with most of the things you've said here about Freud, but I would quibble that with regards to Newton, alchemy might have been the driving force that led him to discover the things he did, in other words, he set out to turn metal into Gold and discovered gravity and the law of motion instead.
I have two biographies of Newton and one of them
voiced this opinion.

It strikes me as feeble, to put it nicely.

I do not think the other, more substantial bio made any connection.

Newton left two million words worth of unpublished manuscripts
dealing with alchemy and religion, as well as science and math.

I wonder what the ms and other evidence is for the date of the
inception of his interest in alchemy.

There is no doubt that his theory of gravitation was fully formed
in 1666, when he was 23-24 years old.

[USViking]

In response to USViking, I thought I would just post links to research posted today from the "Mind & Brain" section of sciencedaily. The assertion that the related fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience are making little or no progress is both silly and willfully ignorant, and I would add that saying so is an insult to working scientists.

Drug Study For Brain Cancer Shows Promising Results (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213120952.htm)
Let's just stop right here with the first title.

Brain cancer is not a field where psychology or psychiatry
have anything to offer.

Zero.

Zilch.

Without even opening the link I can tell you that it says
pharmaceuticals are what show promise.

Why don't you go to the trouble of checking out your own
links a bit more carefully, and then if you think one of them
really supports your position give us a few quotes and a few
of your own comments?

[USViking]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/psychiatry/

That's the link to the psychiatry section specifically. Here are the titles of the first few studies on the page:

1. Blood Pressure Drug May Curb Brain Damage From Alzheimer's, Depression And Schizophrenia

2. Excessive Tantrums In Preschoolers May Indicate Serious Mental Health Problems

3. Mental Illness And Drug Addiction May Co-occur Due To Disturbance In Part Of The Brain

4. Mice Provide Important Clues To Obsessive-compulsive Disorder

5. Is There A Developmental Component To The Risk For Depression?

But I suppose none of these studies are of any practical use. :rolleyes:
1. "MAY curb..."

2. "MAY indicate..."

3. "MAY co-occur..."

4. "...CLUES..."

5. "Is there?..."

So far none of these studies claim to be of
practical use yet, do they?




First-ever Genetic Animal Model Of Autism
Ah, genetics: mention of this astounding, true and vital science
gets me interested.

If Gregor Mendal puts his stamp of approval on something,
then I take notice. I may have a looksie at the details
of this one.

Autism is a controversial topic, isn't it? So are "models",
aren't they?

[whatever]

I have two biographies of Newton and one of them
voiced this opinion.

It strikes me as feeble, to put it nicely.

I do not think the other, more substantial bio made any connection.

Newton left two million words worth of unpublished manuscripts
dealing with alchemy and religion, as well as science and math.

I wonder what the ms and other evidence is for the date of the
inception of his interest in alchemy.

There is no doubt that his theory of gravitation was fully formed
in 1666, when he was 23-24 years old.

I think I read somewhere that his interest in alchemy started quite young (19 is the number I have in my head right where they have evidence of his tinkering with it). Even if the theory of gravity came to him by other means, the point is that his passion for knowledge, his habit of inquiring into things were a result of his passion for alchemy.

[whatever]

1. "MAY curb..."

2. "MAY indicate..."

3. "MAY co-occur..."

4. "...CLUES..."

5. "Is there?..."

So far none of these studies claim to be of
practical use yet, do they?




Ah, genetics: mention of this astounding, true and vital science
gets me interested.

If Gregor Mendal puts his stamp of approval on something,
then I take notice. I may have a looksie at the details
of this one.

Autism is a controversial topic, isn't it? So are "models",
aren't they?


Do you not agree that Autism and dylexia and ADD are in the field of psychology and psychiatry and it has helped a lot of people in the last few decades?

[USViking]

I think I read somewhere that his interest in alchemy started quite young (19 is the number I have in my head right where they have evidence of his tinkering with it). Even if the theory of gravity came to him by other means, the point is that his passion for knowledge, his habit of inquiring into things were a result of his passion for alchemy.
I think Newton matriculated at age 19.

Ms indicate he developed an immediate passion
for science and math.

Is there documentary evidence for his interest
in alchemy at the same time?

And if there is, how can it be established that
the passion for alchemy led to a passion for
real science, and not the reverse? How can
it be established that either one had any real
bearing on the other? It cannot.

[USViking]

Do you not agree that Autism and dylexia and ADD are in the field of psychology and psychiatry and it has helped a lot of people in the last few decades?
No, I am not sure they have helped, and isn't there
some controversy as to whether autism and ADD
have been properly defined?

I do not think the number of diagnoses has dropped,
so there has been no contributed to prevention either.

[whatever]

No, I am not sure they have helped, and isn't there
some controversy as to whether autism and ADD
have been properly defined?

I do not think the number of diagnoses has dropped,
so there has been no contributed to prevention either.

So what if the diagnosis has not dropped? Cancer prevention aren't really an exact science, but the curing of cancer nevertheless made a real contribution. That the diagnosis of these conditions has not dropped does not indicate that the identification of these conditions has provided no useful application in society. And it would be hard to eliminate alot of these cases since they are more often than not genetically predetermined.

The identification of Autism I know has help alot of people with symtoms and their carers in how to deal with it and lead a better life.

There are anecdoctal evidence that the dianogsis of ADD has helped alot of parents.

I personally know that having identified the symtoms of dylexia, those who live with it are better able to cope with it. And they are regconised as having a medical condition, not just being told they are stupid like they were used to.






With regards to Newton, you're right, there's no way to tell for sure, so your arguement is just as relevant as mine, I guess.

[USViking]

So what if the diagnosis has not dropped? Cancer prevention aren't really an exact science, but the curing of cancer nevertheless made a real contribution.
Cancer research has been one of the greatest
ongoing disappointments of my life.

Surgical and therapeutic measures have improved,
but there has been no progress toward a real cure.

I do not say either cancer or psychological research
should be stopped. I do say they are both pushing
a century's worth of failure. I do say that if there are
answers then we are missing them.





That the diagnosis of these conditions has not dropped does not indicate that the identification of these conditions has provided no useful application in society.
What is does mean is that conditions have not improved,
and there is little or nothing to show for the money and
effort that have been spent.





And it would be hard to eliminate alot of these cases since they are more often than not genetically predetermined.
The descendants of Msgr Mendel may be part of the
eventual solution. The descendants of Dr. Freud are
unlikely to be.





The identification of Autism I know has help alot of people with symtoms and their carers in how to deal with it and lead a better life.
Again, there is controversy as to whether either
one of these had been correctly defined.

The utility of diagnosis will be suspect until there
is more universal agreement about what they really are





There are anecdoctal evidence that the dianogsis of ADD has helped alot of parents.
Anecdote is not good enough in a case like this.





I personally know that having identified the symtoms of dylexia, those who live with it are better able to cope with it. And they are regconised as having a medical condition, not just being told they are stupid like they were used to.

It sounds like all psychology has to offer here is a
leg-up for the patients' self-estemm. That is better
than nothing but I do not see it as major progress.





With regards to Newton, you're right, there's no way to tell for sure, so your arguement is just as relevant as mine, I guess.
I believe the foundation of Newton's useful work is
documented in his own hand going back to about
1661, when he was 19.

If there is no corresponding documentation for interest
in alchemy 1661-1666, then as far as I am concerned
the alchemical argument does not have a leg to stand on.

[Lumpen Prole]

Let's just stop right here with the first title.

Brain cancer is not a field where psychology or psychiatry
have anything to offer.

Zero.

Zilch.

Without even opening the link I can tell you that it says
pharmaceuticals are what show promise.

Why don't you go to the trouble of checking out your own
links a bit more carefully, and then if you think one of them
really supports your position give us a few quotes and a few
of your own comments?

I explicitly stated that was from the "Mind & Brain" section, which deals with psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, one of which you conveniently left out of your rebuttal.

1. "MAY curb..."

2. "MAY indicate..."

3. "MAY co-occur..."

4. "...CLUES..."

5. "Is there?..."

So far none of these studies claim to be of
practical use yet, do they?

I'm not sure you understand how science works. Scientists don't say to themselves, "Gee whiz, we need to cure Disease X," walk into the lab, perform an experiment, and instantly come up with the answer. The fact of the matter is that scientists work on problems that we don't have solutions to; they are dealing with the unknown. These are problems of immense difficulty. Are you really asserting that these studies are of no practical use? Do you really think that these studies won't be informative in terms of future research? That's simply a naive view, and once again, insulting to the people devoting their lives to such problems.


Ah, genetics: mention of this astounding, true and vital science
gets me interested.

If Gregor Mendal puts his stamp of approval on something,
then I take notice. I may have a looksie at the details
of this one.

Autism is a controversial topic, isn't it? So are "models",
aren't they?

As a working geneticist myself, I agree, it's a fascinating field. Your comments on Mendel, apart from being irrelevent to the topic, are interesting. He was a very important person in the history of science, but simply knowing who he was and painting him as some sort of saint adds nothing to conversation (it might be interesting to note that Mendel doctored his work).

Are models controversial? Yes, almost always. But again, you don't seem to have a grasp of how science is conducted. Scientists construct models That's what they do! It is the process of constantly creating, re-creating, and refining those models that gives us more and more accurate pictures of the phenomena we're examining.

Cancer research has been one of the greatest
ongoing disappointments of my life.

Surgical and therapeutic measures have improved,
but there has been no progress toward a real cure.

I do not say either cancer or psychological research
should be stopped. I do say they are both pushing
a century's worth of failure. I do say that if there are
answers then we are missing them.

Unfortunately statements like this are all too common among non-scientists. People seem to think that one day some guy in a lab is going to create a potion that will make anyone with any type of cancer all better. There will never be "a cure." There are many different types of cancer that arise by completely different mechanisms.

You're gauging fields of science by whether or not they have come up with solutions to glorified problems which can't even be answered. Honestly, does "progress" really mean "a cure" for cancer or the ability to treat all psychological disorders with 100% efficiency? Really, at least show a hint of respect for the people devoting their lives the solving problems you don't even understand.

[Lumpen Prole]

I thought this might be worth sharing:

Effective New Treatment For Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is one of the most debilitating of the major psychiatric disorders, and is also one of the most difficult to treat. Although numerous antipsychotic treatments are available, they can cause significant side effects and many patients experience only a partial relief of their symptoms and up to 30% no relief at all.

In a new study scheduled for publication in the December 15th issue of Biological Psychiatry, Marder and colleagues examined the efficacy and safety of a new psychotropic agent for the treatment of schizophrenia in a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The authors studied paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets, an investigational drug which orally delivers the active metabolite of the drug risperidone, which is an already established efficacious antipsychotic. The authors recruited 444 patients who were experiencing an acute episode of schizophrenia and, after evaluating the severity of their symptoms, administered one of four treatments for 6 weeks: 6 mg or 12 mg/day of paliperidone ER, 10 mg/day of olanzapine (the active comparator), or placebo. During the six weeks of treatment, the investigators monitored the patients for side effects and assessed their symptom improvement.

Dr. Stephen Marder, senior author on the paper, explains the findings: "This double-blind study found that two doses of paliperidone extended release tablets were more effective than placebo for treating the symptoms of acute schizophrenia. Patients receiving the most effective dose of paliperidone (6 mg) also demonstrated improvements in their social functioning." Jeffrey A. Lieberman, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University and Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, comments, "This study demonstrates the efficacy of the 9-hydroxy metabolite of risperidone that has antipsychotic efficacy and an acceptable safety profile which provides psychiatrists with yet another treatment option. It has practical advantages with its long half life, duration of action and extended release formulation. Dr. Lieberman cautions though that this finding is not "a novel or breakthrough treatment and does not provide major differences or advantages over existing treatments." Additional studies are currently underway to further evaluate the long-term (up to one year) efficacy and safety of paliperidone ER in the treatment of schizophrenia.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101409.htm

[USViking]

I explicitly stated that was from the "Mind & Brain" section, which deals with psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience,

one of which you conveniently left out of your rebuttal.
I did not leave anything out of my rebuttal.

Mention of the link in question falsely associates
psychology and psychiatry with progress in the
treatment of brain cancer when in fact no credit
is due to them.





I'm not sure you understand how science works. Scientists don't say to themselves, "Gee whiz, we need to cure Disease X,"
Scientists do this.





walk into the lab, perform an experiment,
Pluralize "experiment" and this is also accurate.





and instantly come up with the answer.
The correct formualtion would be: "and sometimes
come up with the answer".





The fact of the matter is that scientists work on problems that we don't have solutions to; they are dealing with the unknown. These are problems of immense difficulty.
No argument from me here.





Are you really asserting that these studies are of no practical use? Do you really think that these studies won't be informative in terms of future research? That's simply a naive view, and once again, insulting to the people devoting their lives to such problems.
The studies THEMSELVES do not yet claim utility.

The only thing that is naive is to assume that they will
be useful at all. If all such boilerplate as you have been
citing were fully true then all disease would be cured by
the end of the month. Well, maybe by the end of the year.





As a working geneticist myself, I agree, it's a fascinating field. Your comments on Mendel, apart from being irrelevent to

the topic, are interesting. He was a very important person in the history of science, but simply knowing who he was and

painting him as some sort of saint adds nothing to conversation
Mendel is fully relevant as a contrasting example to
that of Freud. I am also using his name metaphorically
as an example of an initiating genius of a new field
whose basic truths are not in question, and whose
utility is firmly established.





(it might be interesting to note that Mendel doctored his work).
I was aware that he probably cherry-picked
the best results from his data. A regrettable
lapse which however only diminishes him personally
without affecting the accuracy and importance of
his epochal discoveries.





Are models controversial? Yes, almost always. But again, you don't seem to have a grasp of how science is conducted. Scientists construct models That's what they do! It is the process of constantly creating, re-creating, and refining those models that gives us more and more accurate pictures of the phenomena we're examining.
What exactly does the term "model" provide
that is left out by the terms "theory", "hypothesis"
and "experiment"?

Please try use as little hype and jargon as possible
in your answer.





Unfortunately statements like this are all too common among non-scientists. People seem to think that one day some guy

in a lab is going to create a potion that will make anyone with any type of cancer all better.
Jenner, Pasteur, Banting, Salk and others did
pretty much exactly that with other diseases,
and I expect all practicing research oncologists
share my disappointment completely in their own
comparative lack of progress. If they don't they should.





There will never be "a cure." There are many different types of cancer that arise by completely different mechanisms. You're gauging fields of science by whether or not they have come up with solutions to glorified problems which can't
even be answered.
I certainly hope the dispair conveyed by these
statements is not general within the field.

If it is then maybe that is why we are not getting anywhere.





Honestly, does "progress" really mean "a cure" for cancer or the ability to treat all psychological

disorders with 100% efficiency?
I have said repeatedly that I do not expect 100%
efficiency in anything.

Do you hear me now, finally?





Really, at least show a hint of respect for the people devoting their lives the solving problems you don't even understand.
Pity is the sentiment I most feel for those
who labor without useful result.

[USViking]

I thought this might be worth sharing:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101409.htm



Effective New Treatment For Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is one of the most debilitating of the major psychiatric disorders, and is also one of the most difficult to treat. Although numerous antipsychotic treatments are available, they can cause significant side effects and many patients experience only a partial relief of their symptoms and up to 30% no relief at all.

In a new study scheduled for publication in the December 15th issue of Biological Psychiatry, Marder and colleagues examined the efficacy and safety of a new psychotropic agent for the treatment of schizophrenia in a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The authors studied paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets, an investigational drug which orally delivers the active metabolite of the drug risperidone, which is an already established efficacious antipsychotic. The authors recruited 444 patients who were experiencing an acute episode of schizophrenia and, after evaluating the severity of their symptoms, administered one of four treatments for 6 weeks: 6 mg or 12 mg/day of paliperidone ER, 10 mg/day of olanzapine (the active comparator), or placebo. During the six weeks of treatment, the investigators monitored the patients for side effects and assessed their symptom improvement.

Dr. Stephen Marder, senior author on the paper, explains the findings: "This double-blind study found that two doses of paliperidone extended release tablets were more effective than placebo for treating the symptoms of acute schizophrenia. Patients receiving the most effective dose of paliperidone (6 mg) also demonstrated improvements in their social functioning." Jeffrey A. Lieberman, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University and Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, comments, "This study demonstrates the efficacy of the 9-hydroxy metabolite of risperidone that has antipsychotic efficacy and an acceptable safety profile which provides psychiatrists with yet another treatment option. It has practical advantages with its long half life, duration of action and extended release formulation. Dr. Lieberman cautions though that this finding is not "a novel or breakthrough treatment and does not provide major differences or advantages over existing treatments." (emphasis added- USV) Additional studies are currently underway to further evaluate the long-term (up to one year) efficacy and safety of paliperidone ER in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Woop-dee-doo.

I wonder how much effort and money were spent
running as fast as possible just to stay in the same place.

Try again.

[Lumpen Prole]

Well, I think this conversation has run its course. On the one hand, we have USViking, someone who is not a working scientist, does not know what a model is or how it is used by scientists, and does not consider the overwhelming majority of scientific studies to be of any practical importance (most studies produce results that are tentative and used primarily inform future research). On the other hand we have psychiatry and other related fields such as psychology and neuroscience, millions of dollars worth of research, and thousands of hard-working professionals churning out unprecedented amounts of data.

I'll stick with my fellow scientists on this one.

[USViking]

Well, I think this conversation has run its course. On the one hand, we have USViking, someone who is not a working scientist, does not know what a model is or how it is used by scientists, and does not consider the overwhelming majority of scientific studies to be of any practical importance (most studies produce results that are tentative and used primarily inform future research). On the other hand we have psychiatry and other related fields such as psychology and neuroscience, millions of dollars worth of research, and thousands of hard-working professionals churning out unprecedented amounts of data.

I'll stick with my fellow scientists on this one.
The most significant part of your statement is
the word "churning".

The term has a negative connotation in business
having to do with the performance of unnecessary
work in order only to create higher bills for the customer.

I expect there is a sound analogy between the "churning"
of the business model and "churning" in the model of the
sciences of human behavior.

[Lumpen Prole]

Pretend it says "producing" instead.