The legitimacy of depression as an illness. (2 Viewers)

[dieburndie]

Got ADHD? Give them a depressent.
Got Depression? Give them a anti depressent.

Haha... what?

ADHD is not the opposite of depression. The most common medications used in treating it are stimulants.
You might be thinking of mania?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I caught your point, but I was correcting your strawman of the state of play - i.e. I wanted to make clear that neuroscience is not at the point where it can fully make claims to that extent.



IMO, the most interesting phenomenon is consciousness. It is relatively straight forward to demonstrate how functional properties, such as might be performed by a computer (e.g. information processing, input/output, and so forth), may be instantiated by chemical structures. However, things quickly become difficult if you try to work out how consciousness can be explained in such terms. Some would maintain that there is an 'explanatory gap' which can never be bridge by empirical science. I am undecided myself, but it is certainly a fascinating theoretical issue.

Different parts of macromolecules can feel minute modifcations at the other end (eg: small conformational changes of proteins can change its entire structure), and they adjust accordingly. Kinda like a mini BRAIN.

mebbe something like that can explain it comrade.

 

[SnowFox]

It's not quite that simple. The best theories suggest that it is an interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental triggers.

Religious beliefs may well help in some cases. Religion can give a person a sense of community and a transcendent cause outside of themselves. Also, it seems to be the case that religious/cultural beliefs which discourage suicide have a slight protective effect (against suicide, that is). Pathways and portions of the brain can change in both structure and function in response to experience (--> learning in general, conditioning, development, etc).

Having faith in god wont save them, having a community willing to help, offer support and talk to will help them.

 

[SnowFox]

Well effectively you can. Go read Tony Robbins.

or Eckhart Tolle.

They're two self help gurus, not fucking psychiatrists.

 

[SnowFox]

Haha... what?

ADHD is not the opposite of depression. The most common medications used in treating it are stimulants.
You might be thinking of mania?

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I was assuming, because its linked to ADD and ODD (More crap i was misdiagnosed with), that it was balanced out with depressents to slow down the sufferer to the extent where nervousness and the constant moving is slowed down to a minimum.

I might be wrong but im sure Zoloft is a depressent.

 

[Kwayera]

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I was assuming, because its linked to ADD and ODD (More crap i was misdiagnosed with), that it was balanced out with depressents to slow down the sufferer to the extent where nervousness and the constant moving is slowed down to a minimum.

I might be wrong but im sure Zoloft is a depressent.

Lol no? It's treated with stimulants, like ritalin or dexies.

Bad analogy, but in people with ADHD, stimulants and depressants sort of do the.. opposite.

 

[Iron]

U GUYS KNOW NUTTHING OF WHAT I SUFFEWRRRRR
/lolthread

 

[SnowFox]

Lol no? It's treated with stimulants, like ritalin or dexies.

Bad analogy, but in people with ADHD, stimulants and depressants sort of do the.. opposite.

Goes to show my doctor is a dick accessory.

 

[Graney]

NLP is a nonsense psuedo-science.

pseudo



Quality thread imo. I've been thinking about how, formerly in the thread I accused psychiatry of being a psuedo-science (which was painting things a bit simply with too broader brush), on the basis that areas of it apparently are untestable and unfalsifiable.

But how important are these things anyway?

Testability never stopped the theory of evolution. Evolution is of course, possible to test, but afaik there have been a few failed experiments, and no major successful ones. Experimental results don't form the bulk of the evidence for the theory.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Lol no? It's treated with stimulants, like ritalin or dexies.

Bad analogy, but in people with ADHD, stimulants and depressants sort of do the.. opposite.

attention deficit

stimulants stimulate attention

Fin

 

[Kwayera]

pseudo



Quality thread imo. I've been thinking about how, formerly in the thread I accused psychiatry of being a psuedo-science (which was painting things a bit simply with too broader brush), on the basis that areas of it apparently are untestable and unfalsifiable.

But how important are these things anyway?

Testability never stopped the theory of evolution. Evolution is of course, possible to test, but afaik there have been a few failed experiments, and no major successful ones. Experimental results don't form the bulk of the evidence for the theory.

Hurr. Psychiatry is medicine-based treatment of mental disorders; psychology is, well treatment of the mind. Each has its uses, but psychiatry is most certainly not pseudo-science. Given what psychology actually treats, it can be seen as far more "untestable and unfalsifiable" than psychiatry.

Also.. evolution untestable? Um, no, tell that to germ theory (unless you're talking about abiogenesis and the Urey-Miller experiments).

 

[KFunk]

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I was assuming, because its linked to ADD and ODD (More crap i was misdiagnosed with), that it was balanced out with depressents to slow down the sufferer to the extent where nervousness and the constant moving is slowed down to a minimum.

I might be wrong but im sure Zoloft is a depressent.

ADHD is generally treated with amphetamines (or similar) which are found to improve concentration and other cognitive functions.

Zoloft is not a depressant - it is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) used as an anti-depressant.

 

[KFunk]

Hurr. Psychiatry is medicine-based treatment of mental disorders; psychology is, well treatment of the mind. Each has its uses, but psychiatry is most certainly not pseudo-science. Given what psychology actually treats, it can be seen as far more "untestable and unfalsifiable" than psychiatry.

Note, though, that psychotherapy and dynamic models of the mind have extremely strong historical ties with psychiatry. Speaking therapies can be seen as the domain of both psychology and psychiatry, even though mainstream psychiatry is becoming more and more medicalised (for better or for worse).

 

[Graney]

Also.. evolution untestable? Um, no, tell that to germ theory (unless you're talking about abiogenesis and the Urey-Miller experiments).

Can you elaborate on what you're suggesting by the comparison to germ theory?

My (limited) understanding is that germ theory, like evolution, is unproven by direct testing, but is accepted due to the overwhelming volume of useful predictions it makes.

The comparison to germ theory is one often used to challenge those who would dispute evolution on the grounds of it being "just a theory", when the amount of medical progress germ theory has been responsible for makes it effectively undeniable

It's a fair point. Other prominent theories (plate tectonics comes to mind), are bleedingly obviously true, yet untestable. Does this mean testability is an irrelevancy, if the observations made by a theory are superior to the alternative?

 

[Kwayera]

Germ theory is testable in laboratory conditions by exactly what you said - it makes "predictions" that are proven accurate in the lab and in real world conditions.

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist.

Many creationists have claimed that evolution is unfalsifiable. Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[9][10][11] Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[12]

Similarly, the evolution of the great apes and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor of apes and humans. This assertion could have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. Molecular biology identifies DNA as the mechanism for inherited traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and the great apes share a large percentage of their DNA, and hence human evolution has passed a falsifiable test.

Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[13] Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".[14] However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."[15] He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."[15]

While the last bolded bit is certainly true, both evolution and its subset (germ theory) meet the requirements of falsifiability and testability. They make precise and specific claims. The idea that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases, in the case of germ theory, is infinitely testable and falsifiable in the lab, and has been so since we invented microscopes.

Plate tectonics is also testable and faslifiable, though given the scale, it's usually "tested" on a much smaller scale and with much smaller components. This theory (and others) didn't necessarily arise because it's bleedingly obvious - by definition, it arose as an explanation of the depth of testable, falsifiable evidence for it.

 

[katie tully]

Catalyst: Germ Theory - ABC TV Science

Side note, totally got nothing to do with thrad, but I found it interesting.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Sometimes God does mean things, you know? You might not know why he's doing it but as long as you trust him, you'll know that he loves you and he's putting you through this evil because he wants what's best for you.

Depression is God's tool for making you happy.

 

[Scissors]

Sometimes God does mean things, you know? You might not know why he's doing it but as long as you trust him, you'll know that he loves you and he's putting you through this evil because he wants what's best for you.

Depression is God's tool for making you happy.

thanks iron!

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Some of us have found a deeper meaning to our formerly trivial lives.

Others attempt to rationalise their lives outside of God, inevitably fail, and die.

The choice is yours, comrade Scissors. You have nothing to lose but your eternal damnation.

 

[Iron]

Hahaha
Na, depression is just a chronic lack of faith - a tragic separation from God where the good cannot justify crossing over into evil, so they turn their rage and hatred inward. This may be a very selfless act, in that they protect others from their inner demons, but the result is a shame