[p2p-research] shots in the dark/p2p article

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> I feel that if we abandon the idea of scientific causality, we become lost
> in a world of mysticism and fraud where nearly anything goes and progress
> isn't based on fact but on power.  

Agreed (even as causality is a slipper subject given multiple factors 
causing something or hysteretic causal loops).

However, "power" usually defines what is researched.
   "The Kept University"
   http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm
"Commercially sponsored research is putting at risk the paramount value of 
higher education -- disinterested inquiry. Even more alarming, the authors 
argue, universities themselves are behaving more and more like for-profit 
companies "

And "power" may also define how results are interpreted.

Also, it is not "scientific" to dismiss results because they do not agree 
with theory. But, that is what many in the scientific and medical fields do.

So, while you suggested I put up a strawman that alternatives were somehow 
all unified (not my intent), I'll suggest you are doing the same by 
suggesting all "science" is unified. There are a variety of people calling 
themselves "scientists" with a variety of agendas, a variety of funding 
sources, and hanging together in a variety of groups with different norms.

By the way, might as well question some more of the medical field while I'm 
at it, and indirectly invoke Godwin's law on myself. :-) From:
   http://www.stopthepsychs.com/
"There is nothing on this planet that is more evil than a psychiatrist. 
Nothing. Period. Even the Nazis and Adolph Hitler were not as bad ... after 
all, these monsters were created by the psychiatrists."

That page mentions this book, by the way, though the link is broken:
"Psychiatrists-- The Men Behind Hitler: The Architects of Horror"
http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Men-Behind-Hitler-Architects/dp/0964890917
(Although it appears that the criticism somehow scientology related.)

Also, from someone's religious perspective (not saying I agree, but lots of 
links):
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/psychiatry_is_evil.htm

An article about Scientology's attack on Psychiatry:
   http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index.html

By the way, both Scientology and Psychiatry could be problematical in 
different ways but make good points criticizing each other. :-) This is also 
not to endorse either; it's just an interesting struggle, and two wrongs 
don't make a right.

But regardless of who says it, this sounds all too true, from the link above:
"""
Many of the symptoms that kids exhibit in the classroom, Figueroa argues, 
may just be signs of academic, emotional or nutritional problems -- 
difficulty understanding a lesson, parents who are getting divorced, an 
allergic reaction to a food such as peanuts or strawberries. In those cases, 
he suggests, a child needs only tutoring or vitamins. But he's convinced 
that psychiatrists don't recognize those possibilities; they just drug the 
child into submission, like a kiddy version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's 
Nest." "Their only tool is to label and to drug," Figueroa says. "That's all 
they know how to do."
"""

But, on the other side, that article continues:
"""
Advocates of the psychiatric care of kids say that's preposterous. 
"Appropriate treatment is not always medication," says Darcy Gruttadaro, 
director of the National Child and Adolescent Action Center for the National 
Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Referring to Scientology organizations like 
CCHR, she says, "These groups make a leap of faith that we're going to 
identify kids and put them on drugs. That is their attempt to sensationalize 
this issue to recruit other individuals and groups."
"""

Still, in defense of the criticism of some psychiatrists prescribing drugs 
for school children, consider:
   "Paying attention, not drugs, touted for ADHD"
   http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-06-15-adhd-approach_x.htm
"""
Q: In the book, you say every "Ritalin kid" you've ever met has "unmet needs 
and emotional turbulence — not disease." Have you ever met a kid who defied 
this prognosis?
A: Some kids — not an insubstantial number — end up being labeled and 
drugged because the conventional classroom fails to meet their quite healthy 
need to be noisy and physical, and to learn at their own pace. The unhealthy 
diet of routine, repetition and control leaves them bored and frustrated. 
Some resist actively by acting out and refusing to do as they are told. 
Others resist passively by not paying attention or making the necessary 
effort to keep up with the rest of the class. In my 30 years of teaching, I 
have yet to meet a child whose behavioral or learning difficulties couldn't 
entirely be explained by his or her story. Once you get to know children 
well enough, you quickly discover that their problematic ways of being are 
not symptoms of some chemical imbalance in the brain. Rather, very often 
they are distress signals to which no one has been paying enough attention. 
That's my definition of an "attention deficit." Related story: Expert says 
medication has more lasting impact
"""

But paying attention is expensive all around, whereas drugs are cheaper in 
the short term.

And there are also many schools of psychiatry and psychology. And Philip 
Zimbardo points out they may have different time perspectives (past in 
psychoanalysis, present in existential psychotherapy, and future in 
humanistic psychotherapy):
   http://books.google.com/books?id=Fqpl3XrzHF4C&pg=PA20
   http://www.thetimeparadox.com/
"Time is one of the most powerful influences on our thoughts, feelings, and 
actions, yet we are usually totally unaware of the affect of time in our lives."

So, what schools of Psychiatry is Scientology attacking? Which aspects of 
Scientology would Psychiatry find most problematical (given, say, positive 
thinking as it likely has might be useful)? I don't meant to answer those; 
I'm just drawing parallels over debates of conventional medicine vs. 
alternative medicine each poking at each other (to be clear, this is not to 
give Scientology the status of much of alternative medicine).

I do feel psychological wellness is an important issue, but how to achieve 
it or maintain it is a complex issue, with rarely any one-size-fits-all 
solution.

(I have an undergrad degree in Psychology, by the way. :-)

I think the deeper issue is, as paradigms are getting overturned left and 
right, it's hard to know what of the old models developed in the last few 
hundred years, often alongside industrialism and to justify it, are sensible.

So, I think you are right to be skeptical. But, you seem very credulous 
about people who claim to be scientists and who are able to put documents in 
print in prestigious journals. As you said, "legitimacy" is a big issue.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/