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