Talk:Biological psychiatry: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:21, 14 April 2006 editCesar Tort (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,180 edits →Why psychiatry is a pseudo-science ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:00, 11 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,384,902 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WPMED}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(197 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Controversial}}
	Someone added a paragraph to the article that's blatantly POV. I'm reverting the article back to its last form until I can organize a response. I apologize for the lack of citations in what follows, but I'm throwing this out in a hurry. Once I have those I'll get to work on the cleaning up the article itself. Whoever added it (anonymously, at that ) seems to be of the opinion that any criticism of biological psychiatry constitutes an attack against the scientific method and the concept of science in general. There's a difference between a critique of the assumptions behind the biologically deterministic school of psychiatry that's been in vogue for a while and that of the more radical anti-psychiatrists who use "biological psychiatry" as an all-purpose epithet for those that don't agree with them that psychic anguish is only the result of the conflict between the free-spirited individual and a repressive society. If only the layers of societal repression could be removed, and people could learn to expand their idea of "normal behavior" then mental illness would cease to exist. In a sense, this use of "biological psychiatry" is the diametric opposite of the beliefs of the ones who posit its existence in the first place. The anti-psychiatrists (in this author's opinion, amongst others) romanticize the plight of people who are seriously suffering as a means of speaking truth to power.
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	<p>There's another, less radical definition of "biological psychiatry". That there's a journal out there that goes by that moniker indicates (to me, at least) that the term is more than just the creation of anti-psychiatry activists. I've personally known people who consider themselves "biological psychiatrists". I would define "biological psychiatry" in this sense as the theory that depression/schizophrenia/anxiety/etc (what are commonly known as "mental illnesses") that are illnesses and as such are the result of pathological differences in the way their brains work compared to other people, in a manner analogous to other, physical diseases. To this critic at least (one heavily influenced by Stanton Peele, among others), conceptualizing differences in mood and/or perception as purely the result of a disease process denies the role of individual agency and experience in determining how they feel. In particular, the idea that "mental illnesses" are inexorably lifelong, chronic, and relapsing, isn't necessarily borne out by the data (cites to follow), and that conceiving them as such can make it harder for people to get better by encouraging them to view their thoughts and emotions as ipso facto evidence of pathology. ''You can be anti-"biological psychiatry" without denying a role for biology in psychiatry.''
			{{WikiProject Psychology\|importance=High}}
	<p>That there are differences in brain activity between "normal" and "mentally ill" individuals does not necessarily imply that the "mentally ill" brain state is pathological. To the extent that the brain is the seat of the mind it follows that there is a physiological correlate to every mental state, associated with different levels of neurotransmitters or receptors, gene expression, etc. It's easy to simply pick two groups of people labled "normal" and "mentally ill" and then proceed to pick them apart in search of differences between the two groups. You'd find plenty. A lot of them might even show strong correlations. But, as they say, correlation does not equal causation. There is dramatic overlap between "normal" brain activity and "mentally ill" brain activity, enough so that it's impossible to look at HVAA or DMT levels in spinal fluid or urine, or glucose or oxygen utilization and make a diagnosis with any reliability. False-color MRIs or other imaging techniques can be manipulated to make minor, possibly inconsequential differences in brain activity seem more dramatic than they are. <p>Contrast this to diabetes or hypothyroidism. In the former case, insufficient insulin production or a reduced cellular response to insulin is diagnostic. In the latter, low circulating thyroid hormone levels and abnormally high TSH levels are. There are some borderline cases, but if you've got a TSH of 10, something's wrong with your thyroid, or else your pituitary gland. In the case of Parkinson's Disease or Alzheimer's Disease (both of which the author compares to mental illnesses), specific, identifiable neurodegenerative changes are clearly present. The specific causes might not be known at this time, but when you cut open the brain of someone with Alzheimer's disease, it becomes very clear very quick that they have it. It's the same with Parkinson's. In the case of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, no such clear healthy/ill dichotomy can be found. Every so often it seems that someone comes along with a discovery that a gene (or genes) is the cause of alcoholism or drug abuse or bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or depression or... the list is endless. The "discovery" inevitably garners great media attention as an example of the way that modern medicine is conquering all ills, but the retraction a few weeks, months, or years later showing that the correlation isn't the slam-dunk it originally seemed to be usually doesn't. Despite that, these "great discoveries" keep getting trotted out in textbooks and further media reports as examples of the "overwhelming evidence" that mental illness is the result of a dysfunctional brain, with a little lip service paid to the role of the environment.
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=mid}}
	<p>I'm stopping here before I get too carried away on that. Here are some ideas for expanding the article:
			}}
	<p>-A better definition of biolgical psychiatry. If there's a journal that goes by the name, there's people actually devoting themselves to its study.
			{{archives}}
	<p>-More examples of the evidence for biological psychiatry, as defined above, without being presented as simply "overwhelming". The biopsychiatric interpretation of the evidence is the most popular right now, but the data lend themselves to other reasonable (and scientific, unlike the relationship between evolution and "intelligent design", say) interpretations.
	<p> eg: The higher depressive relapse rates for people who have been on antidepressants and go off of them versus people who stay on them has been commonly accepted as evidence that the drugs work, but as a result of the way antidepressant studies are structured (more on that later) the difference could be interpreted as the result of some kind of biological change making people more liable to depression after taking antidepressants.
	<p>-More about the differences between anti-biological psychiatry critiques. Link the radical one to anti-psychiatry and let people who want to learn about it read up on it there. Maybe some examples of psychatric excesses so as to give some perspective on why people might be skeptical of it, without transforming it into a psychatrists-as-amoral-butchers freakshow.
	<p>-More balanced coverage about weaknesses in or excesses of the biological psychiatric model, without smearing all critics as being anti-science or the "everyone's ok, it's society that's the problem" model.
	<p> One example that comes to mind is the study that came out recently that referred to conservatism as a mental disorder.

			==CCHR==
	== Article as written is highly POV, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and based on a misconception ==
	:This article is extremely biased, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The main purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the topic, not take positions on it. Simply describing it does not equate to a "pro" position. Furthermore this article as written is based on a misconception: that because the term "biological psychiatry" is frequently used by detractors of the concept, that justifies writing a highly POV disparaging article on the topic.

			If no objections I will move the paragraph —:
	:Examples: ] is very controversial, but that article mainly describes the topic. Describing abortion in detail does not constitute taking a "pro" position on that. Within the article there's a link to a separate article on ]. Likewise ] is very controversial, but that article primarily covers that topic not the controversy. Describing evolution in detail does not constitute taking a pro position on that. There's a link within the article to ].

			<blockquote>The movement, bolstered by groups with similar criticisms of biological psychiatry (such as the ]), is often labeled, sometimes derogatorily, as '']''. Others with an anti-psychiatry point of view do not dispute the notion that certain behavior phenotypes have an organic basis, but dispute the labeling of neurological differences as disordered and inferior (see, for example, the ] and the ] concept).</blockquote>
	:Similarly this article should primarily cover the topic: biological psychiatry and the basis for that concept. If anybody feels strongly against the ''associated controversy'', they are welcome to write a separate article on ''that'' and place a link to it in this article. If you further want to advocate your opinions, there are plenty of opportunities on Usenet and various other discussion forums. However this is an encyclopedia article on a specific topic and not the place for those opinions.

			—to the main ] article, where it belongs. Reason: the ]’s ] does not focus on biological psychiatry, but on psychiatry in general. —] 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Re "biological psychiatry" being primarily used by detractors, that is not necessarily correct. Of course a Google search will show many such hits, but that is NOT representative of how the term is generally used. You can go to any library, use their search tools and you'll see most of the references are factual descriptions of biological psychiatry or related matters.

			: Hello Cesar, would appear to disagree with your analysis. ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
	:To better understand this, consider the term "]". It is often used in a disparaging way, but the Misplaced Pages article on ] doesn't emphasize that. Rather it describes the origin and basis for the term. Likewise this article (like any other encyclopedia article) should focus primarily on describing the topic. ] 18:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

			==Neuropsychiatry==
	:The prime directive of an encyclopedia article is to ''describe'' the topic. This is not a Usenet discussion, nor a high school debate. The article should emphasize the topic description, basis for existence, and history. If great controversy is associated with the topic, it should be placed in a separate article.

			I think some mention of ], and link to that article, fairly early on. Anyone agree/disagree? ] 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
	== This article is currently worthless ==

			: Ignore that, I have just seen it is in there. ] 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
	First of all, biopsychiatry is not a term used entirely by detractors. It's just that one of them (a detractor, that is) wrote this article. Second of all, medicine has its basis in the natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry) and it is a widely, if not universally, accepted fact that medical (and by extension, psychiatric) problems arise from some tangible source. In other words, medicine attempts to look for the ''cause'' of the problem. Psychological counseling neither diagnoses nor specifically treats any underlying physical (whether it be anatomical or phsyiological) illnesses. See the article called "]" for an explanation of why this conception of biopsychiatry exists.

			==Criticism==
	"...which they believe places undue emphasis upon biological theories and psychiatric drug treatment, rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and psychological counseling."

			The last part of this section reads "Furthermore, some scientists feel that psychiatry is a light science as that there is no tangible evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders. Thus, biological psychiatry may be the key to bring psychiatry into the realm of actual science." (After some grammatical corrections). The first sentence seems rather POV and probably a reference is needed. I am also not certasin that the expression "evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders" is correct. --] 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
	First of all, who are these critics? Scientologists, no doubt. Second of all, what is "objective diagnosis" in the context of psychological counseling? The answer is, it doesn't exist. Psychological counseling and diagnosis of medical pathologies are diametrically opposed. Psychology is ''not'' (currently) a science, nor is it objective, by any means.

			== Request for Quote ==
	Lastly, let me point out that without "biological theories" medicine would cease to exist. Without these theories, we simply wouldn't have the sort of advanced technology that we do. Let me end this by saying: '''All''' medical problems have a biological basis, whether we know what it is or not. With conditions of an unknown etiology, remember that: ''Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence''.
			The quote from the journal description:
			:''Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) is a peer-reviewed journal ... examining all the ramifications of the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease that is best treated with pharmacological therapy. This oversimplified view of human nature permeates virtually every area of our society...''
			I have remove the request from the article. ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

			==Scholarly?==
	- Fuzzform (not logged in, using school computer) Mar. 3rd, 12:31 EST.
			Can we have a reliable citation supporting the claim that these journals are scholarly: "The Journal of Mind and Behavior" or "Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry"? See criticism section.--] 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
			: Both are peer reviewed according to their websites, that makes them as "]" as any other academic journal. Some of these source requests are getting out of hand. "Vocal minority" for example? What exactly is supposed to be sourced here. Its patently obvious they are a minority - what else would they be? If "vocal" is the issue, then remove it, as I doubt that is sourceable. ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 07:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

			::...well agreed, no argument on the word "vocal"...and also no argument with the dictionary use of the term "minority", one simply can't squabble about the use of that word either. Minority simply means less then 1/2. I wasn't really intending to comment on this issue but the objection to the word "minority" that needs addressing, is that in Wikipedialand that word means something else, it means legitimacy and credence within the eyes of society. In Wikipedialand what counts is majority and minority opinion. IE i) A majority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more rewards then risk. ii)A minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more risk then rewards. Finally a view that should get very little if any weight....iii)A vocal minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants causes brain damage. Do you see the difference? Do you see the problem?
	----

			::Same goes for the word "scholarly". In academia land that word has real currency, it means that respected peers from your whole branch of knowledge scrutinized what was published and gave it a seal of approval. For anyone who has actually published a paper in a respected journal, the process really puts your idea through the ringer and if it doesn't cut the mustard it is not published.
	I've removed the following paragraph, as it is highly misleading and totally against all notions of NPOV. I think it should, at most, be used in a "Criticism" section, definitely not as a main description of this field. More partisan stuff will show up in this section.

			::Contrast that with certain journals which claim to be scholarly but are not. By scholarly they may mean that others with some letters behind their name, and also possibly the same belief system, have scrutinized your paper. Furthermore, these "scholarly" papers can be made to look authentic, often with reams of citations, when in fact...they are anything but scholarly. The purpose of such papers, journals, and even institutions, may all have to be about giving legitimacy to a belief system which would never be accepted in the academic world.
	:"...used mainly by critics of mainstream ] practice to describe what opponents of psychiatry believe are unproven and subjective diagnostic and treatment practices in modern ]. References to ] psychiatry are used specifically by critics to denote the biological model of mental health, which they believe places undue emphasis upon biological theories and ] treatment, rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and ] ]."

			::I know that ] the noted antipsychiatrist founded the one journal and is an assessing editor on the other journal. All sorts of alarm bells ring in my head about blinding bias when I know this. I believe David Cohn, who wrote a book with Breggin, also sits on the editorial board of the JMB. In my mind just because their website states that they are scholarly, doesn't cut the mustard. That is why wikipedia loves secondary sources and the need to verify. I bet you would have no problem finding secondary sources which state the the NEJM is scholarly.--] 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
	----

			:::One way of deciding this is to look whether any of these journals is included in the ]. If they aren't, they may perhaps still be "scholarly", but they certainly wouldn't be notable.... --] 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
	This entire article is pretty much worthless right now. I moved the criticism out of the initial description and into the "Criticism" section. The entire article is criticism. No neutral references to the discipline whatsoever. And certainly no rebuttals to or reasons for any of the criticism. The article starts denigrating biopsychiatry before the reader even knows what it is. One neutral sentence isn't quite enough. I'll keep working on it, and if it changes drastically, please leave any comments on this page (especially relating to '''edits'''). ] 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
			::::Just checked: neither of them are included. Meaning neither gets enough citations (= attention = notability) from outside its small niche to warrant inclusion into the WoK databases. --] 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

			:::::: Those points are all fair, but I do think we have to be careful about projecting what words mean in Wikiland to what words actually mean. ''Minority'' means ''minority''. In this case, not the majority. The significance and size of this minority is open to debate (and if it isn't significant, we shouldn't be discussing it at all), but it doesn't change the fact that it is a minority. If there is a source quantifying, or even qualifying, this minority then I am all for adding it. What I don't think is fair, is demanding a source for "minority", as no-one is actually questioning that. The real question behind that tagging is, "Is the minority significant enough to warrant a mention and can we source that?" Requesting a citation for "minority" is not the way forward answering that question.
	== Only one tag removed ==
			:::::: As for the scholarly issue. I think I may have written that with the intention of distinguishing between peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed journals. No comment on the merit, significance or importance of the journals was intended. If someone has a better way to explain that these are specialist journals publishing research articles for and by academics, rather than, for example, ] then please do so. Perhaps something like "niche ]s" would be better? ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
			::::::: Why "niche" at all, then, if the point was "scholarly"? I've never read this article before today and thus wasn't predisposed on the topic one way or the other, but to me the modifier "niche" conveyed not merely "specialist" but "kooky," probably because people aren't referring to all scholarly journals as "niche" publications in this article. In other words, why single out this journal for "niche" treatment?] (]) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

			== RfC on ] ==
	The article is indeed POV. However, I removed the “disputed” tag since I cannot see factual inaccuracy in the article.

			An RfC has been created on ] on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	The article can be saved introducing in the first paragraphs biological psychiatry as the psychiatric profession views it. Only after that the controversy could be presented (there is no need for another article; the recently re-written ] article is enough).

			== Removed non-sequitur about developmental psychology ==
	On the other hand, there are errors of logic in the “Rebuttals to criticism” section. The sort of reasoning “If it responds to medication it must be biological” has been refuted by psychiatrist Colin Ross in his article “Errors of logic in biological psychiatry”. I read Ross’ article in a book he co-edited with Alvin Pam. When I bought “Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry” ten years ago I only paid $50. It now costs $165 in Amazon Books! . However, it is worth reading Ross and Pam’s critique of biopsych. (Of course, you can see for free Ross’ web page .)

			The removed information was purely about developmental psychobiology, not about the subheading topic. The purpose of this article is about biological psychiatry, not about developmental psychobiology. That article is the appropriate location to add such information. ] (]) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
	Though the initial paragraphs in the Misplaced Pages article are anti-psychiatry POV, the last paragraphs are pro-psychiatry POV. This makes the article no less POV but more POV! Consider the last paragraph:

			=== A vocal minority ===
	:It is also worth noting that all medical conditions are caused by biological factors, whether those factors are anatomical or physiological. A disorder with unknown etiology is still rooted in biology (despite the fact that the origin is unknown - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), whether the problem is a product of somatic of neural malfunctioning.

			calling a group of people that dislike something something a vocal minority sounds highly pov and like an attempt to downplay things. It's also a statement that cannot be verified. Added a neutrality disputed template. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I have written a whole article about this sort of tricky argument. Though it has not been published (I live in Mexico and don’t have editorial connections with other countries), an English version of it can be read in my own web page. Please take a look at it . ] 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

			==Inclusion of 'Biopsychiatry controversy' in Introduction==
	== Dualism? ==
			The final sentence of the introduction (as stands) states that 'The field, however, is not without its critics...'. It seems only fair that, especially given Psychiatry's proclivity towards being misused for state/political control (not just in Communist states), there should be a link to ] which indicates why this term may be misleading. Some might argue that ] is the name given to try and provide Scientific credence to theories that many other Scientists would dismiss offhand as being based upon fallacious reasoning. Further, I find it difficult to imagine that there is even a single Psychiatrist who would argue that EVERY 'disorder' (note: NOT disease) within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, has a neurobiological basis.

			The whole article could be seen as an attempt by Psychiatrists to provide a Post-Hoc Justification for keeping so many people locked up in (expensive) Psychiatric institutions using tenuous Pseudo-Scientific justifications which appear scientific (one of which is the term Biopsychiatry). One could try to justify Quackery using the term 'Biological Quackery' to achieve the same (unconvincing) sticking plaster results. The key point to realise is the SCIENTIFICALLY based Medical Tests are often NOT used in reaching Psychiatric Diagnoses. Whereas one can objectively test for high blood pressure using a blood pressure meter, or use brain scans to find a brain tumour, such objective tests are ALMOST-NEVER used in Psychiatry. Also, we find that people often find there way into Psychiatry after engaging in criminal (including misdemeanour) acts, or even visiting Political Demonstrations.
	Just reverted the ] epithet. Thomas Szasz is perhaps the best known critic of bio-psychiatry. He is not a dualist. Like me and many other critics of biopsych, Szasz is totally agnostic. We don’t even believe in post-mortem survival. —] 23:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Without some sort of dualism, what is there to influence that is not biological, and accessible to drugs? Would you describe it as a non-cartesian dualism or in some other way? ] 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			Given Psychiatry's conflation with the misuse of power (both now and in the past) we should be concerned as to whether any attempt at Scientific justification could possibly negate the highly questionable practices of Pscyhiatry. This is perhaps a criticism of practice and not theory - Scientists and Doctors are held to high ethical standards (say, to make sure that they don't make-up results), why shouldn't Psychiatrists be held to those same standards?
	::Thanks for your presence in this page and for your edits. You are very welcomed here! This page needs more people like you.
	::It is not a matter of Cartesian vs. non- Cartesian dualism. It is possible to be a materialist and to fight against involuntary psychiatry as well. I myself am a fan of ] and the ]. There is even a CSICOP fellow, Robert Baker, who recently passed away, who wrote a book stating that bio-psych is a pseudoscience . In a nutshell, neurology is true science and a genuine branch of medicine; biological psychiatry is not, as can be seen in the arguments in the ] article. Biopsych is similar to ] or ]. As to your specific question, please take a look at neurologist Elliot Valenstein’s “Blaming the brain: the truth about drugs and mental health” . —] 06:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. Is the phrase being used a good one? "Biology" seems to me to be orthogonal to "involuntary". I mean one may have involuntary talking treatment, and voluntary biological - drug surely - treatment. In the UK also under the Mental health Act it is entirely possible for people to not accept any drug treatment even if their medical attendants think it is very clear that it would be beneficial to them.
	:::There is a distinction between "not entirely understood" and "know nothing about" and some of this article seems to have been based on ignoring or eliding that difference. The mind is more complex than the hardware it runs on, but that doesn't stop some things being known about it well enough to improve. There is an evidence-based psychiatry movement. ] 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			I will be making a minor modication to the introduction to refer people to the ]. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::The word “biopsych” is a code word used to oppose involuntary ], ] or ]. In 1998-1999 I took a mental health course in Manchester’s Open University. If I remember correctly, the 1983 Mental Health Act does not warrant at all the liberties you mention to users. As to your last paragraph, I believe that neurologists, psychologists (on the science side) and biographers and autobiographers (on the humanities side) can handle the mind problem. But psychiatry has absolutely nothing to do with ]. You can also take a look at the book “Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry” . —] 09:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:::You make good points in your informative postings. I was perhaps lazy in pointing at our MHA - I meant it defines the rather limited times and scope of compulsory treatment, and outwith that (and common law and so on) treatment can be resisted, and is. Doctors in general, and nurses and otehr professions allied to medicine (PAMs) as much so, are not only content with that, but don't want extensions of it such as the mental health bill rattling around Parliament currently. The general population may though. ] 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::'''Codeword''' is what i was getting at. There are perfectly good words for all those concepts, and they are more clear and specific, and without etymological problems than the codeword. (Part of the definition of a code vis a vis a cipher is that the words in a code are arbitrary. here a word which appears to have a meaning is being used for something not quite the same. There has been some over-categorisation in the general area of activity and discussion. It would be better in many ways to use "JKLIV" than "Biological" because the definition would then be from scratch.)] 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::My impression is that psychiatrists come in many flavours, and that they start off as medical students and junior doctors and get a grounding in the scientific basis of medicine as we all do. I think it exaggerates to say they and their specialty have nothing to do with hard sciences. On one model this would be slightly similar to condemning computer programmers for having nothing to do with the soldering of the hardware their programs run on. ] 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::Biopsych has really nothing to do with hard sciences: just as Soviet psychiatry in communist times had nothing to do with real science, but only imitated the scientific method. Another book I may recommend on this very subject is ]’s “Pharmacracy” , though for the moment you can take a look at my own article . Only neurology is a true hard science. —] 11:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::I suspect that despite, or alongside, the excesses of a police state mediated through the cover of psychiatric institutions and language, there were people trying to improve the quality of life of other people with mental illness. Many things go on at the same time, some of them better than others, and some of them more firmly rooted than others. ] 11:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:3\|one external link\|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	== Vague, uncited, POV. Parked here ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318051743/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830113155/http://www.umaine.edu/jmb/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html to http://www.umaine.edu/JMB/archives/volume11/11_3-4_1990summerautumn.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318051743/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000031.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	"Criticisms of mental health marketing practices and ] treatments have seemingly had little impact on the growing solidarity between the pharmaceutical industry and the ] professions. Instead, the influence of 'biological psychiatry' appears to actually be strengthening, as evidenced by the growing political and economic clout of the industry."

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	Needs work, or abandoning. ] 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I vote for abandoning. —] 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	== Alzheimer’s disease? Biological psychiatry? ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I have great problems with the phrase: “Much of the criticism attributed to biological psychiatry centers on the fact objectively defined pathological conditions have been found for only a select few mental illnesses, such as Alzheimer...”

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	Historically, if a psychiatric condition is found to be biological, it is withdrawn from the psychiatric field and studied by neurologists. And there’s the rub with all of this neurology vs. psychiatry, hard- or pseudo-science issue. Alzheimer is absolutely unique: it’s exactly in the border of neurology and psychiatry. But it’s not a paradigmatic psychiatric disorder. These are schizophrenia (dopamine pseudoscientific theory); depression (serotonine pseudoscientific theory); ADHD (ibid.), and many more. It is therefore unwise to mention Alzheimer: it may be misleading for the Misplaced Pages readership.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613185709/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Bi/Biological_Psychiatry.html to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Bi/Biological_Psychiatry.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613192013/http://www.sobp.org/purpose.asp to http://www.sobp.org/purpose.asp
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506221541/http://medapps.med.harvard.edu/psych/education-residency.htm to http://medapps.med.harvard.edu/psych/education-residency.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516124057/http://www.delano.com/ReferenceArticles/Depression-Historical.html to http://www.delano.com/ReferenceArticles/Depression-Historical.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092048/http://www.springerpub.com/journal.aspx?jid=1559-4343 to http://www.springerpub.com/journal.aspx?jid=1559-4343

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	As to the article’s opening paragraphs, I have been in psychiatry libraries and have seen mainstream psychiatry manuals with the title BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY. So it’s not used only by critics...

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	I am curious if you have read the main ] article, Midgley? —] 18:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I expect I swung the meaning of the opening too far - crisp, clear, but incomplete. Its next iteration will be better, I expect. I read anti-psychiatry (and I'd met it) but I know the article has been edited since, and IIRC it was described as major edits... The psycho-geriatricians are an increasing specialty who deal with general medicine ("internal medicine" for Americans I think), neurology obviously, and psychiatry. There is a risk of ending up characterising a doctor as nothing to do with science in their psychiatry practice, and all to do with it in their neurology practice, when they are actually dealing (holistically even) with patients running minds on damaged and degenerating hardware. Same doctors, same patients... As Humpty Dumpty might say, given that "Biological psychiatry" is a code for (see earlier) and means what those using it (WP: Owning the words perhaps) decide it means, perhaps someone writing a textbook or journal with the same words on the cover is not writing about the same thing? Relative, essential, or confusing. ] 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
	::The ] article was re-written by me and others last month. It is precisely the re-written article, not the original article (very bad written by the way), which you might find interesting.

	::If you read the re-written article you will see that only neurologists deal with damaged hardware; never psychiatrists. And yes, I agree with you: since it is used by both sides, the “Biological Psychiatry” term is indeed confusing! —] 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll make time for that. Possibly tomorrow. I'm unsure how many topics there are here, and where to slice them up - certainly there is '''something''' worth having around these articles. ] 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Shaky clause ==

	..."rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and ] ]."

	However one spells ], I suspect this clause has deeper troubles, starting off from a POV forumulation, and continuing through an absence of the demonstration of objective diagnoses of _psychiatric_ medical diagnoses where the question is begged. In short, I doubt that this represents the polar opposite of the first clause in the sentence in which it lies, still. ] 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Cull ==

	If no objections, with the help of other editors I will unmercifully cull and re-write this article as I did with the ] article. —] 10:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Breggin ==

	:Yes Midgley, please correct my English when you feel it necessary. Spanish is my native language so my phrases need syntactic correction and clarification. (BTW, Breggin studied psychiatry in Harvard; has written a dozen of psychiatry books; founded the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; founded the only peer-reviewed journal I know devoted exclusively to criticize biopsych, and has been called to Congress to talk about the dangers of Ritalin.) As I said above, to make the article NPOV we could first present biological psychiatry as mainstream psychiatry perceives the field. A paragraph may be needed above the “Critics” section. —] 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Caesar's English is very good. Ratehr than correcting anything I might strip some redundancy out of sentences, something I do to any writing, except my own. ] 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Ombudsman's edit ==

	"rv: cursory examination of Midgley's edits indicates insertion of pov, spin, or worse; even the copy edit re: reference vs references, after consideration of context, is dubious at best" I am displeased by this un] ] comes with no discussion or justification on this talk page because it is his common practice. What can be done to restrain this? ] 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

	== NPOV tag removal? ==

	The article may still need changes, additions or modifications. As I said above, English is not my native language.

	However the re-written article looks NPOV to me. Any objections to remove the NPOV tag? —] 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Much better. I've made an edit to the opening paragraph that is seeking precision rather than a change of meaning. ] 17:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Add further info? ==
	I see the article has been significantly improved from the earlier state, which is great. I have a fair amount of additional info (definitions, history, etc) I'd like to add. Is that OK? Misplaced Pages says "be bold", but I didn't want to surprise everybody if I add a bunch of stuff. ] 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Of course you can contribute! The only rule is that the edition should be ]. —] 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Discuss changes ==
	As previously discussed, I've integrated a lot of new material. It's essentially a total re-write. I hope it's obvious it was an ambitious, laborious project.

	My goal was to produce an article worthy of an encyclopedia (that's what Misplaced Pages is, after all): scholarly, neutral, informative, and well-referenced.

	I'm not a healthcare professional, and am completely agnostic about biological vs behavioral determinants to mental health. However an encyclopedia should prioritize describing the topic, not debating it, critiquing it, or editorializing on it. This descriptive-oriented approach is standard practice at of other encyclopedias, and for good reason. To do otherwise damages the scholarly impartiality, usefulness and ultimately the very legitimacy of the encyclopedia.

	Please discuss any questions, issues or problems here. (remark by Joema) (Please sign with 4 tildes ] 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

	:I've cleaned up the references quite a bit. Some names of authors and journals need further editing, as they are incomplete. Access dates are also needed for all web-based sources. Also, I've added a few "citation needed" tags to uncited pieces of information. ] 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks, I'll work on that. ] 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

	== NPOV tag ==

	Biological psychiatry is a pseudoscience like ] and ], as can be demonstrated in the writings of several '''non''' biological psychiatrists and mental health professionals: , , , , , , , . There is even an entire peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to debunk bio-psychiatry . The totally re-written article is pro-psychiatry propaganda. —] 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	What do you think the article should say? --] 11:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	A problem here is that the term is being used for different things by different people. I suspect that while articles could be written about each use, any of those, or an article about all uses is unlikely to satisfy any group. A lot of it looks like alternative doctor-knocking rubbish, but that may just be the view you'd expect from a doctor. ] 12:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I propose that the short NPOV article edited by Midgley and me replace the existing long POV article and then try to work together on a NPOV basis if the article edited by Midgley and me is going to be extended. —] 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Incidentally, I agree with you Midgley that alternative medicine is rubbish. As stated above, I am a fan of ] and the skeptics (I even contributed with a note in ] to debunk the “wall face” appearances of Belmez, Spain). However, ''criticism'' of phrenology, Lysenkoism or biopsych is not “alternative medicine”. —] 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	::The article is NOT pro-biological psychiatry, any more than the article on ] is pro-abortion or the article on ] is pro-evolution. The main purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the topic. Think of it as an elaborate dictionary. Describing the topic and the underlying basis DOES NOT equate to a pro position on the subject. The NPOV tag is entirely unwarranted. ] 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::I am not alone in this opinion. In his 17:59, 13 April 2006 contribution to the article, Ombudsman wrote: “this article has become a poster child for extreme ivory tower pov pushing”. —] 23:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Incidentally, evolution is real science; biopsych is not. —] 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	::::Just like you have very strong feelings against this topic, and claim it's not real science, millions have strong feelings against evolution and claim IT is not real science. From an encyclopedia standpoint, that makes no difference. The purpose of an encyclopedia is describe and explain the topic. Doing so does not equate to taking a position on it. I understand you may want to convince others of your position, and that's fine -- but not in an encyclopedia article. I sincerely entreat you, please do not continue this. You have many avenues to persuade others of your position. Please don't use an encyclopedia article for this. If necessary this can be escalated, but I beg you -- please save everybody the time. Put anything you want in the ] article. Or create your own specific anti-biological psychiatry article. But please, please don't continue putting that into this article. ] 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::I could say exactly the same about the article Midgley and I edited and you took over: please, don't continue putting that into this article. —] 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm going to have to side with Joema on this one. The critics of biopsychiatry are criticizing certain aspects of it yes, but I have yet to see any claims that it is a pseudoscience. Perhaps you came to this conclusion abrubtly due to some unpercieved bias - I surely hope you are not another Scientologist seeking to smear the notion that perhaps there is a biological basis for all medical conditions. After all, we are just a gigantic complex of molecules, organized into cells, tissues, and in the end, the organism - humans. So if you would like to debunk something, try ]. After all, that wasn't considered a science until fairly recently, and it still incorporates incorrect and non-empirical conclusions in varying degrees. If you would like to include a "Criticism" of biopsych, feel free to add a section toward the end. But please don't change the intro to say "biopsych is a pseudoscience" or anything of that nature, because it is no more a pseudoscience than psychology. (P.S. you do realize the article already incorporates criticism of biopsychiatric theories?) ] 04:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Citation number 17: all of the contributors to this journal are in the fields of "divinity", "psychology", "psychoanalysis", "spirituality", "author", "survivor" (those last two greatly puzzle me), "mind-body medicine", "phenomenological psychology". All of these draw conclusions through ] reasoning. None of them use ], or ] reasoning to come to conclusions. Biopsychiatry does use empiricism as its basis; using MRI, EKG and many, many other quantitative methods, the physical/biological nature of mental illness can be investigated. Ergo, psychology is a pseudoscience, biopsychiatry is not. But still, feel free to add criticism, if you can find specific examples. ] 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


	Write out what you want to say here so the other editors can have a look at it. --] 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Why psychiatry is a pseudo-science ==

	No: I am not a scientologist. I am not a psychologist either.

	Didn’t Fuzzform misrepresent citation number 17 (''Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Critical Inquiry'')? The journal’s founding editor that debunks biological psychiatry is a psychiatrist himself: Peter R. Breggin, MD. The editors are Jonathan Leo, PhD, and Laurence Simon, PhD; the associate editors are David Cohen, PhD; David Jacobs, PhD; Jay Joseph, PsyD; Stephen E. Wong, PhD, and Michael McCubbin, PhD.

	Also, the editor of ''Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry'' is a psychiatrist .

	In a nutshell, as a Popperian philosopher of science would easily notice, the way bio-psychiatrists present their hypotheses on the diverse neuroses and psychoses —biological diseases “of unknown etiologies”— makes them non-falsifiable or irrefutable biological hypotheses. “Thus, an irrefutable hypothesis is a sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience” (Terence Hines). —] 05:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Cesar, I appreciate you think psychiatry is a pseudo-science. People have strong opposing feelings about many subjects: ], ], ], etc. However encyclopedia articles on those subjects should prioritize documenting the topic, not being a forum for dissenting opinion.

	:There's no shortage of venues to express your feelings and persuade others. But this encyclopedia article is not that place. I beg you, please, please, use those other avenues. Feel free to write a Wikiepdia article on anti-biological psychiatry. Start your own discussion forum. But I earnestly entreat you, please don't continue this. I beg you with all my heart -- please. ] 05:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	::I could also beg you, Joema, not to delete the article I edited with Midgley: but you nuked it.

	::Also, Holocaust deniers and creationists are crackpots. I hate Holocaust deniers and despise creationists. On the other hand, psychiatrist ], the founding editor of the journal that criticizes biopsych, and the other mental health professionals, are sane people. Why don’t you better address my Popperian argument? After all, biopsychs, not their critics, say that they study biomedical entities “of unknown etiology”. —] 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	::: Hi guys (and perhaps, gals). I was referred to this page to offer an opinion. I've read through the article and talk and, as its stands, i think it isn't ''too'' bad, but there are still a few problems about neutral tone. For example we cannot say: ''a central theory of biological psychiatry (monoamine hypothesis, popularly known as the "chemical imbalance theory") is deeply flawed in its original form''. or ''Since the monoamine theory is certainly wrong in its initial formulation, and likely incomplete even in the current form, it would appear that much of biological psychiatry is based on a shaky foundation.'' Both are highly POV and thus it must be attributed if they are to remain.

	:::I also happen to think that the article loses focus, it should be more factually descriptive of what biopsych is (from both the majority (pro) and minority (anti) POV) and less a critique of its flaws. I agree that much of the content would much better linked to another article on the controversy of chemical imbalance. However, the argument that it is a pseudoscience is easily cleared up in policy, ] says:

	::::''If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view''' ''''

	::: In terms of this article, I interpret that as follows. Whether something is psuedoscientific or not is not relevent in regards to how it is presented in an encyclopedia (after all we adopt a '''neutral''' point of view, not a '''scientific''' point of view). Therefore we describe biopsych according to what the majority view is (and i'm pretty sure that majority view is that biosych is not pseudoscience) AND we state what the minority view is (i.e. that anti-psychiatrists, some religious groups and assorted others believe that it is a pseudoscience). From my discussions with Cesar, i think he believes that the "majority scientific view" on this subject does somehow infringe what defines pseudoscience (i appreciate that is an oxymoron, but i hope you can see what i mean). That may be the case, but its got good enough for Misplaced Pages to call it a pseudoscience. For our purposes, "scientific" is what current mainstream science accepts and "pseudoscientific" is what the current mainstream calls a pseudoscience. So as long as we state what the majority and minority beliefs are, we should have no problem, as both should be explained neutrally. Thus the question is not whether biopsych can fulfil the criteria of a pseudoscience, but does anyone dispute that the scientific mainstream currently treats it as a science and those that call it a pseudoscience are in a minority? ] 06:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


	::I have no objections with your comments Rockpocket but I wonder if you read the article I edited with Midgley (who is quite a skeptic of alternative medicine). Anyway, that article was nuked. But I agree that the minority view deserves a space in the article even if it is just 25%. Take a look at the flaming debate about the ] article (MT for short). Almost the entire world is convinced that MT was a saint. However, a tiny minority believes she was an evil and selfish old woman. I wrote at the end of the current debate in ]: “A single individual may be right and the rest of the society wrong. That’s what I learnt in John Stuart Mill’s ] and Orwell’s ]. Hitchens is no Wonkum. All I am asking is some space for people like him in the MT article”. In other words, the majority view about biopsych doesn’t mean that it’s real science. That’s the ''ad populum'' fallacy. Like the MT article, 25% of space should be conceded to critics. —] 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I've got to agree with ], above, only more strongly: this article reeks of POV and original research. I don't know how ] has arrived at the notion that the ''ad populum'' fallacy applies in this instance and I'm concerned that the article, as envisioned by ], would have the same problems that would arise if a creationist wrote an article about evolution and promptly labeled it "pseudoscience." And I can't agree that 25% of any article should be "conceded to critics." In some articles, the mere mention that there are critics may suffice. This page seems to be a candidate for a "Needs Expert Attention" template. ] 09:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	::The article that Midgley and I wrote was NPOV. I really don’t understand what you are talking about. In the MT article 25% is, in fact, conceded to critics, even if they are a tiny minority compared to the billions of Christians. I think that Rockpocket’s evaluation of the article is fairer that yours. —] 09:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:00, 11 February 2024

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

CCHR

If no objections I will move the paragraph —:

The movement, bolstered by groups with similar criticisms of biological psychiatry (such as the Church of Scientology), is often labeled, sometimes derogatorily, as Anti-psychiatry. Others with an anti-psychiatry point of view do not dispute the notion that certain behavior phenotypes have an organic basis, but dispute the labeling of neurological differences as disordered and inferior (see, for example, the autism rights movement and the neurodiversity concept).

—to the main Psychiatry article, where it belongs. Reason: the Church of Scientology’s CCHR does not focus on biological psychiatry, but on psychiatry in general. —Cesar Tort 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cesar, This article would appear to disagree with your analysis. Rockpocket 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neuropsychiatry

I think some mention of Neuropsychiatry, and link to that article, fairly early on. Anyone agree/disagree? Neuropsychology 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that, I have just seen it is in there. Neuropsychology 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The last part of this section reads "Furthermore, some scientists feel that psychiatry is a light science as that there is no tangible evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders. Thus, biological psychiatry may be the key to bring psychiatry into the realm of actual science." (After some grammatical corrections). The first sentence seems rather POV and probably a reference is needed. I am also not certasin that the expression "evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders" is correct. --Crusio 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Quote

The quote from the journal description:

Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) is a peer-reviewed journal ... examining all the ramifications of the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease that is best treated with pharmacological therapy. This oversimplified view of human nature permeates virtually every area of our society...

I have remove the request from the article. Rockpocket 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly?

Can we have a reliable citation supporting the claim that these journals are scholarly: "The Journal of Mind and Behavior" or "Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry"? See criticism section.--scuro 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are peer reviewed according to their websites, that makes them as "scholarly" as any other academic journal. Some of these source requests are getting out of hand. "Vocal minority" for example? What exactly is supposed to be sourced here. Its patently obvious they are a minority - what else would they be? If "vocal" is the issue, then remove it, as I doubt that is sourceable. Rockpocket 07:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...well agreed, no argument on the word "vocal"...and also no argument with the dictionary use of the term "minority", one simply can't squabble about the use of that word either. Minority simply means less then 1/2. I wasn't really intending to comment on this issue but the objection to the word "minority" that needs addressing, is that in Wikipedialand that word means something else, it means legitimacy and credence within the eyes of society. In Wikipedialand what counts is majority and minority opinion. IE i) A majority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more rewards then risk. ii)A minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more risk then rewards. Finally a view that should get very little if any weight....iii)A vocal minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants causes brain damage. Do you see the difference? Do you see the problem?

Same goes for the word "scholarly". In academia land that word has real currency, it means that respected peers from your whole branch of knowledge scrutinized what was published and gave it a seal of approval. For anyone who has actually published a paper in a respected journal, the process really puts your idea through the ringer and if it doesn't cut the mustard it is not published.

Contrast that with certain journals which claim to be scholarly but are not. By scholarly they may mean that others with some letters behind their name, and also possibly the same belief system, have scrutinized your paper. Furthermore, these "scholarly" papers can be made to look authentic, often with reams of citations, when in fact...they are anything but scholarly. The purpose of such papers, journals, and even institutions, may all have to be about giving legitimacy to a belief system which would never be accepted in the academic world.

I know that Peter Breggin the noted antipsychiatrist founded the one journal and is an assessing editor on the other journal. All sorts of alarm bells ring in my head about blinding bias when I know this. I believe David Cohn, who wrote a book with Breggin, also sits on the editorial board of the JMB. In my mind just because their website states that they are scholarly, doesn't cut the mustard. That is why wikipedia loves secondary sources and the need to verify. I bet you would have no problem finding secondary sources which state the the NEJM is scholarly.--scuro 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One way of deciding this is to look whether any of these journals is included in the Web of Knowledge. If they aren't, they may perhaps still be "scholarly", but they certainly wouldn't be notable.... --Crusio 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked: neither of them are included. Meaning neither gets enough citations (= attention = notability) from outside its small niche to warrant inclusion into the WoK databases. --Crusio 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Those points are all fair, but I do think we have to be careful about projecting what words mean in Wikiland to what words actually mean. Minority means minority. In this case, not the majority. The significance and size of this minority is open to debate (and if it isn't significant, we shouldn't be discussing it at all), but it doesn't change the fact that it is a minority. If there is a source quantifying, or even qualifying, this minority then I am all for adding it. What I don't think is fair, is demanding a source for "minority", as no-one is actually questioning that. The real question behind that tagging is, "Is the minority significant enough to warrant a mention and can we source that?" Requesting a citation for "minority" is not the way forward answering that question.

As for the scholarly issue. I think I may have written that with the intention of distinguishing between peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed journals. No comment on the merit, significance or importance of the journals was intended. If someone has a better way to explain that these are specialist journals publishing research articles for and by academics, rather than, for example, Reader's Digest then please do so. Perhaps something like "niche academic journals" would be better? Rockpocket 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why "niche" at all, then, if the point was "scholarly"? I've never read this article before today and thus wasn't predisposed on the topic one way or the other, but to me the modifier "niche" conveyed not merely "specialist" but "kooky," probably because people aren't referring to all scholarly journals as "niche" publications in this article. In other words, why single out this journal for "niche" treatment?McTavidge (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. Hrafn_Stalk 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-sequitur about developmental psychology

The removed information was purely about developmental psychobiology, not about the subheading topic. The purpose of this article is about biological psychiatry, not about developmental psychobiology. That article is the appropriate location to add such information. Joema (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A vocal minority

calling a group of people that dislike something something a vocal minority sounds highly pov and like an attempt to downplay things. It's also a statement that cannot be verified. Added a neutrality disputed template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.60.103 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of 'Biopsychiatry controversy' in Introduction

The final sentence of the introduction (as stands) states that 'The field, however, is not without its critics...'. It seems only fair that, especially given Psychiatry's proclivity towards being misused for state/political control (not just in Communist states), there should be a link to Biopsychiatry controversy which indicates why this term may be misleading. Some might argue that Biological Psychiatry is the name given to try and provide Scientific credence to theories that many other Scientists would dismiss offhand as being based upon fallacious reasoning. Further, I find it difficult to imagine that there is even a single Psychiatrist who would argue that EVERY 'disorder' (note: NOT disease) within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, has a neurobiological basis.

The whole article could be seen as an attempt by Psychiatrists to provide a Post-Hoc Justification for keeping so many people locked up in (expensive) Psychiatric institutions using tenuous Pseudo-Scientific justifications which *appear* scientific (one of which is the term Biopsychiatry). One could try to justify Quackery using the term 'Biological Quackery' to achieve the same (unconvincing) sticking plaster results. The key point to realise is the SCIENTIFICALLY based Medical Tests are often NOT used in reaching Psychiatric Diagnoses. Whereas one can objectively test for high blood pressure using a blood pressure meter, or use brain scans to find a brain tumour, such objective tests are ALMOST-NEVER used in Psychiatry. Also, we find that people often find there way into Psychiatry after engaging in criminal (including misdemeanour) acts, or even visiting Political Demonstrations.

Given Psychiatry's conflation with the misuse of power (both now and in the past) we should be concerned as to whether any attempt at Scientific justification could possibly negate the highly questionable practices of Pscyhiatry. This is perhaps a criticism of practice and not theory - Scientists and Doctors are held to high ethical standards (say, to make sure that they don't make-up results), why shouldn't Psychiatrists be held to those same standards?

I will be making a minor modication to the introduction to refer people to the Biopsychiatry controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASavantDude (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories: