5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: − Thank you for clearing up the causes of bipolar disorder on the article. I understand that there are certain ideological standpoints on this cite, and I don't want to get in the way of that. However, that outlandish of a claim does require a citation. I didn't want to revert the edits of a sysop (at least I think he's a sysop). So, thanks again! [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 15:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)+ − :Bugler's not a sysop, he just acts like one. He would have probably blocked you if you undid it though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::Which is why I didn't do it. I think I'm in pretty good standing so far, and I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way. Thanks again. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::Bugler just reverted it back to his version. I have undone this as I had made substantial contributions re treatment of BPD which he had deleted. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::Look at Andy's Liberal teachings/mental illness article. The link is clearly demonstrated. Add your bits as theory, but don't remove what I have contributed on approved lines. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:15, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::It's called a "mystery", so it doesn't belong in a factual encyclopedia article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::::The link ''isn't'' clearly demonstrated. The only mention of bipolar disorder in that essay is in relation to Stephen Fry, and it says quite explicitly that "Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease". I strongly suggest removing the 'liberalism/socialism causes bipolar' implications from the BPD entry, as it pollutes the quality and balance of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::::I inserted fact tags, because I know if I reverted again then Bugler would revert me, ad nauseum until someone runs to Andy. Instead I expect to see some sources or it can't stay in the article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:36, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − Your belief in 'Big Science' astounds me. There is no demonstrable, factual basis in any real sense for psychology/psychiatry. The practitioners are just feeling around in the dark, learning on an empirical basis that some drugs help here and there, but no proof of what causes anything - just as Darwinians have no proof. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:43, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :He's reverted you anyway. Where do we go from here? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::My belief in big science? Bugler, aren't you supposed to be convincing people that you aren't a parodist? Unfortunately, Sideways, there's not a lot we can do unless a sysop intervenes, since he has blocking rights. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::I don't block for ideological reasons, as you well know, though I would be within my rights to block for that disgraceful insinuation. As for 'Big Science', what is wrong with what I said? Do you believe that scientists are incapable of lying, are incapable of twisting results, are incapable of being influenced by prior agendas? Just look at the way that nutritional advice changes from one month to the next - and always backed up by the best scientific credentails. And psychiatry/ology is the worst of the lot. One day Freudianism is the flavour of the month, then we're all Jungians; now CBT (dog training, as I prefer to think of it) is the panacea. If you attach 'fact' tags to what I wrote, then each of your assertions should have ten! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::You'll never guess what I found in my sock last night! Go ahead, guess! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::::Ohhh what'd you find? Bugler: the insinuation was that you could unblock yourself. That you thought I was insinuating that you would block someone on ideological reasons is, well, pretty telling. If you think that change isn't part of science and makes science wrong, then you really have a lot of learning to do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::::The insinuation that I am not genuine, which I resent greatly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::::I'm astonished. I don't know what the phrase 'Big science' is intended to mean, but is it really the intention of this site to discredit such well established and successful sciences of psychiatry & psychology? You say they are just feeling around in the dark, Bugler. Why? The sciences are built on observed causes and results. Bipolar disorder is believed to be hereditary, not just because it's a convenient theory, but because of the overwhelming burden of cases suggesting this. You seem to reject this, while also trying to apply the same methodology yourself, in your claim that there are correlations between bipolar disorder and political views, and you have provided no evidence for this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − ::::::::To be clear, Sideways, yes: I do believe that both psychiatry and psychology are speculative in the extreme. I don't think even their most ardent fans would claim that they have concrete standards of proof. And to pretend so in this encyclopaedia would be to do our users a very grave disservice. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − :::::::::So the only concrete proof we have is that liberal education is a major cause of BPD? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT) − (unindent)So instead we make up our own theories that have absolutely no clinical correlation whatsoever? Yeah, psychiatric medicine can't explain a lot of the causes of these illnesses but inserting this nonsense isn't doing it any justice either! Psychiatry is not feeling around in the dark, nor is it "speculative in the extreme." Millions of dollars are contributed every year to find the causes and treatments for these disorders. Dollars that go to case studies and drug research—by those big pharmaceutical companies that I'm sure you (Bugler) endorse (strawman intended). I didn't ask for much; just a citation. You can't provide one. The claim should be removed until proper citation is found and verified to be a reputable source. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as you claim "Big Science" to be. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 17:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
User talk:HelpJazz (view source)
Revision as of 21:55, September 16, 2008
, 21:55, September 16, 2008→Bipolar disorder
==[[Bipolar disorder]]==
==[[Bipolar disorder]]==
Moved to [[talk:Bipolar disorder#Moved from User talk: HelpJazz]]