Talk:Biological psychiatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{Controversial}}

Archive
Archives

Contents



[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. HrafnTalkStalk 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)