1,237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 44:
Line 44: − +
Talk:Bipolar disorder (view source)
Revision as of 01:02, September 19, 2008
, 01:02, September 19, 2008→Moved from User talk: HelpJazz
(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)
(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)
:Not a bit of it! I am advancing a theory; Big Science advances its theories as if they were facts. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not a bit of it! I am advancing a theory; Big Science advances its theories as if they were facts. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Theories have evidence, not just speculation. Do you have any? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 21:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
===Big Science===
===Big Science===
In reply to the above: how are you defining "Big Science"? It does not seem to be an encyclopedic term (and has no definition within Conservapedia) but rather a loose-fitting pejorative instead of any specific set of disciplines, and most definitions of 'big science' which I have seen do not tend to include medicine, psychology and the social sciences. You seem to be implying that there is something sinister at work in the diagnosis and treatment of people with this disorder, when in fact the expertise provided by medical professionals and researchers is of great benefit to sufferers.
In reply to the above: how are you defining "Big Science"? It does not seem to be an encyclopedic term (and has no definition within Conservapedia) but rather a loose-fitting pejorative instead of any specific set of disciplines, and most definitions of 'big science' which I have seen do not tend to include medicine, psychology and the social sciences. You seem to be implying that there is something sinister at work in the diagnosis and treatment of people with this disorder, when in fact the expertise provided by medical professionals and researchers is of great benefit to sufferers.