Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: BIOLOGY or PSYCHOLOGY ?

Posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 9, 2000, at 0:29:42

In reply to Re: BIOLOGY or PSYCHOLOGY ?, posted by boB on April 8, 2000, at 22:09:00

> (reference to list in previous post)

> > These are not symptoms. They are clinical diagnoses. I don't believe I listed or referred to a single symptom of anything in my previous post.

> DSM-IV diagnoses are a nomenclature for groups of symptoms.

No. I don't think so. My unschooled perception of the DSM is that it is a listing of the clinical diagnoses of specific named medical conditions for which each is prescribed a precise algorithm of symptom identification and inclusion based upon observational statistics. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you believe that biology is the causative agent?
> >
> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you believe that biology is the agent for its perpetuation?
> >
> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you are sure that biology is neither the causative agent nor the agent for its perpetuation?

> Of the diagnoses you have listed, the observation of the clinical practioner is the causative agent.

This is witty, but shallow and meaningless rhetoric. Of course, I'm supposed to append a IMHO. I would still be interested to see your response to at least one of these questions.

> The practitioner's preference for a common nomenclature,

I should hope a practitioner would be in favor of the use of a common (standardized) nomenclature. Don't you?

> in this case DSM-IV, causes the practitioner to form an opinion based upon the practitioner's observation of symptoms.

I prefer the word "encourages" to "causes". It just sounds better to me.

> The practitioner's opinion is known as a diagnosis.

The practitioner's choice of a particular diagnosis is his opinion.

> The diagnostic methods inferred by DSM-IV's inventory of diagnoses include subjective and projective tests, but not as often chemical tests or biologal measurements. The nomenclature of DSM-IV was derived from the review of collected data, which included data derived by subjective tests, objective tests and neurobiological research.

Sounds pretty good. I am particularly fond of your use of the word "method". It reminds me a bit of the word "algorithm".

> Biology is the study of biological relationships and conditions.

I know I can be a stickler for words. The definition of biology is both simpler and broader.

BIOLOGY:

The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.

* biology \Bi*ol"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ? life + -logy: cf. F. biologie.] The science of life; that branch of knowledge which treats of living matter as distinct from matter which is not living; the study of living tissue. It has to do with the origin, structure, development, function, and distribution of animals and plants.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

* Unfortunately, this definition leaves out such things as protistans, bacteria, fungi, and, depending on who you listen to, viruses. (Personally, I don't see how viruses cannot be considered life. Although viruses really do suck, they still use DNA, even though they have to steal it).


> All human action, even religion, is caused and perpetuated by biological relationships because every living thing is classified as a biological organism. Biological conditions are clearly involved in the causation and perpetuation of all of the classifications of symptoms to which you refer.

And these truths we hold to be self-evident.

Looking back on my original post, I see that I mentioned something about it being important to understand that not all psychological and emotional troubles are biological in origin. I also notice that I stated an opinion that it is important that we treat both the biological and the psychological. Additionally, I don't see that I have specified any biological treatments. Drugs would be included, but not exclusive.

I'm not really sure why we are having this discourse. What is your thesis?


Sincerely,
Scott


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Scott L. Schofield thread:29296
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/29384.html