[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by oo00oo)
At the moment, we define "working correctly" as "working in a way that is close to the statistical average of the way in which all similar things work".

Not true

There has long been a definite move away from the attitude you are describing in psychiatry, because of the damaging results it has lead to in the past.

Nowadays the inclusion of factors such as disruption to an individual's life, prevention of them being able to function, distress caused etc are all very much parts of medical definitions of mental illness.

Being eccentric isn't a mental illness. Being gloomy isn't a mental illness. There may be an overlap with personality and normal variation - but mental illness isn't just atypical - its atypical, and its stopping you from functioning, disrupting your life, causing you distress etc


Basically, psychiatry has already thought of the point you just made


EDIT: A lot of people on this thread are making some very good points about psychiatry in the victorian era, but psychiatry (thankfully) has moved on..
Psychiatrists' (and all other professionals in mental health) jobs are to help people with mental illness live as they want to - free from depression, psychosis, anxiety, insomnia - you name it. To treat the symptoms that people find distressing, or which put them (or others, extremely rarely) in harm's way.

It is public perception, discrimination, the blatant misrepresentation of mental illness (and psychiatry) by the media, ignorance, stigma - these are the real problems for those suffering with mental illness.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Alpharius)
What the **** is there to "believe" in?

There is evidence that mental illnesses exist, that is the end of it.

What evidence?

How do you know bi-polar is an illness and not an illness?

What or who decides what is an illness and what isn't?

A textbook of psychiatric definitions?

Seems like a circular argument?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by snozzle)
If I had cancer I would like to be cured of it.

To be cured implies that one is sick or ill. So...if cancer isn't an illness how are you going to be cured or rather why would you want to be cured as if you aren't sick then there doesn't seem to be anything to treat.

Anyway I think you are confusing the concept of 'illness' as a 'truth', with the ability to diagnose any particular 'illness' - based upon the physical symtoms it claims - with certainty.

For example I could convincingly accept that the Doctors evidence suggests very strongly that I have cancer, but could deny that cancer is an illness. I might for example see it as a natural way for death to assert itself, or as a divine punishment.

You could and should by your own assertions. If mental illness isn't an illness because neurology is as 'non value free' as every other science and the definition of an illness is made by humans then you can't accept anything as illness. As biology is not value free, and illnesses there are defined by humans.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Copperknickers)
I seriously think noone should be allowed to study philosophy unless they have doctorates in genetics and psychology. This thread's premise shows that the OP has no idea how the human mind works.

Isn't that a bit scientistic?

Shakespeare understood psychology before it became a science.

[xHuStLeR23]

I just sharted a biscuit. Named it bill clinton.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by snozzle)
What evidence?

How do you know bi-polar is an illness and not an illness?

What or who decides what is an illness and what isn't?

A textbook of psychiatric definitions?

Seems like a circular argument?

It's replies like this that remind me why I don't post on the Philosophy forum. Inhabited by people who will argue with anything for arguments sake.

Its not hard to find journal articles on neurological diseases/disorders. Even WHSmith sell scientific journals.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by snozzle)
What evidence?

How do you know bi-polar is an illness and not an illness?

What or who decides what is an illness and what isn't?

A textbook of psychiatric definitions?

Seems like a circular argument?

Some basic research could show you plenty of research. Pick any mental illness you want and you can find a plethora of information on it.

[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by snozzle)
What evidence?

How do you know bi-polar is an illness and not an illness?

What or who decides what is an illness and what isn't?

A textbook of psychiatric definitions?

Seems like a circular argument?

Modern psychiatry is based on symptoms that reduce quality of life. These are treated either directly, or by their cause - just as in any other branch of medicine.

What decides whether someone needs treatment for bi-polar disorder (for example) - is if they meet the criteria for that condition (based on previous observations) which will indicate what sort of treatment may help, and whether the symptoms are distressing/ prevent them from leading their life/ endanger them etc.

Noone will force you to have treatment for a mental illness, unless you are psychotic and posing a threat to yourself or others. People seek treatment because their symptoms are ruining (or threatening) their life.

I don't know why people think this is so wrong, or so controversial.

If you had a pain in your leg that was ruining your life, preventing you from staying in your job, making you miserable all of the time, making you want to kill yourself for the pain of it, your relationship with your family and friends is deteriorating, you can't function for the pain..
It may be academic what's causing it, maybe we don't know, maybe we never will, perhaps it overlaps with normalcy (we all feel a pain in our leg sometimes) but it is important and right that people try to help your symptoms, even before they fully understand your disease.

And its not as though there isn't plenty of research trying (and succeeding in many cases) to establish the cause of mental illness.

[PsychoHamster]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
If you take this position then how do you trust any diagnosis? What about cancer? Is that an illness? Or sickle-cell anemia? With your position how do you trust any science. You might as well summarize to say all illness is a human creation as we adjust the definitions as we see fit.

I'm not sure what it has to do with trusting science. Science just observes, identifies and attempts to understand processes. Disorders and disease are just processes which society doesn't like, or lead to consequences it doesn't like. Perhaps not even society, just whomever has the resources. Science spends far more time looking at some processes than others as a result of the value judgements of the resource holder, whom funds the science.

Whether something is good or bad, whether it is right or wrong is a matter of ethics not science. Science observes, identifies/classify's and understands. Observing a process, classifying it as cancer and understanding how it works does not imply there is anything wrong or bad with it. It does not imply resources should be put into stopping it. That's a value judgement as snozzle says.

[snozzle]

(Original post by BeanofJelly)
I don't know why people think this is so wrong, or so controversial.

Not saying it is wrong just can be examined critically.

[snozzle]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
To be cured implies that one is sick or ill. So...if cancer isn't an illness how are you going to be cured or rather why would you want to be cured as if you aren't sick then there doesn't seem to be anything to treat.

Sorry I meant from my subjective view if I had cancer I should like to be cured. Yes that implies I view it as an illness but that doesn't show it is an objectively an illness.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by PsychoHamster)
I'm not sure what it has to do with trusting science. Science just observes, identifies and attempts to understand processes. Disorders and disease are just processes which society doesn't like, or lead to consequences it doesn't like. Perhaps not even society, just whomever has the resources. Science spends far more time looking at some processes than others as a result of the value judgements of the resource holder, whom funds the science.

Whether something is good or bad, whether it is right or wrong is a matter of ethics not science. Science observes, identifies/classify's and understands. Observing a process, classifying it as cancer and understanding how it works does not imply there is anything wrong or bad with it. It does not imply resources should be put into stopping it. That's a value judgement as snozzle says.

I don't think you truly understand what disease or illness is. Scientifically speaking they are processes which are detrimental to the functioning of an organism which are not a result of injury.

disease |diˈzēz|
noun
a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury

illness |ˈilnis|
noun
a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind

Saying something is an illness is not saying whether it is right or wrong. However it can be said to be objectively bad for a person's health.

[snozzle]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Pick any mental illness you want and you can find a plethora of information on it.

I can find a ton on information on Scientology doesn't make it true.

[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by snozzle)
Not saying it is wrong just can be examined critically.

Yes, understand what you mean. Any disease is just a process, upon which we apply a value judgement.

But I don't understand why you're making this point, or its particular relevance to psychiatry?

The subjectivity of our value judgment doesn't affect the objectivity of the process that is occurring.

Just as we would say with any other illness, in psychiatry we can say "oh look X is happening (objective), that is bad (subjective), let's do something about it". Where's the problem?

Without value judgements what are we anyway? Why are you posting here unless you've made the value judgement that it's worth your while to do so?

[snozzle]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Scientifically speaking they are processes which are detrimental to the functioning of an organism.

Sure that is easy when we talk about photosynthesis or thermoregulation but a mind?

[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by snozzle)
I can find a ton on information on Scientology doesn't make it true.

That's because it's not evidence based. I think the person you're quoting is obviously referring to an evidence base. If you don't go on evidence I wonder where do you get your truths from? You are being perverse.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by snozzle)
Sure that is easy when we talk about photosynthesis or thermoregulation but a mind?

Just because it isn't easy doesn't make it less valid. It can definitely be seen in the mind. Again do some basic research. It isn't that difficult. It is all backed by evidence.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by BeanofJelly)
That's because it's not evidence based. I think the person you're quoting is obviously referring to an evidence base. If you don't go on evidence I wonder where do you get your truths from? You are being perverse.

Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't think I had to put in that it was evidence based.

[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by snozzle)
Sure that is easy when we talk about photosynthesis or thermoregulation but a mind?

You're saying that's it's not obvious that taking your clothes off in a supermarket, losing your job, being unable to get out of bed for 10 days, feeling as though you must wash your body 40 times every morning so that your skin bleeds, killing yourself, feeling sad all of the time, being unable to sleep for more than 3 hours a night, symptom, symptom, symptom, symptom are detrimental - even when the people experiencing one or more of these effects describe them as detrimental?


I will give the example of the symptoms used to diagnose postnatal depression:

1. Unable to laugh and see the funny side of things
2. Things getting too much, unable to cope
3. Unable to look forward to or enjoy things
4. So unhappy has difficulty sleeping
5. Blaming self for things which are not their fault
6. Feeling sad or miserable most or all of the time
7. Feeling anxious or worried for no good reason
8. So unhappy that has been crying often
9. Feeling scared or panicky for no good reason
10. Thinks of harming themself often


Please outline which of these symptoms you think aren't detrimental.

[snozzle]

(Original post by BeanofJelly)
Yes, understand what you mean. Any disease is just a process, upon which we apply a value judgement.

But I don't understand why you're making this point, or its particular relevance to psychiatry?

The subjectivity of our value judgment doesn't affect the objectivity of the process that is occurring.

Just as we would say with any other illness, in psychiatry we can say "oh look X is happening (objective), that is bad (subjective), let's do something about it". Where's the problem?

Without value judgements what are we anyway? Why are you posting here unless you've made the value judgement that it's worth your while to do so?

Well I am not saying I disagree with most of that.

Still even if we take the common sense view that science can discover objective truths, psychology and psychiatry are still troubling fields since lots of 'facts' are gathered on a subject-subject basis, and even someone like Wittgenstein implies that inner states are kind of unknowable or we can't say much about them anyway.

Anyway I think it is good for psychology and psychiatry to have a degree of self-consciousness or you end up with a kind of scientism which has no sense of its own limits. Humility is healthy.