The Fallacy of "If it is real, why is there so much opposition to it, and why does nobody back it? (etc)"

This is a question I get many a time, usually when I have been discussing the subject of why psychiatry is bullshit. It comes in many variations: "If it's bullshit, why do so many doctors support it?" "If it's not bullshit, why does so and so prestigious source say that it is?" "I'm certainly going to believe the word of trained professionals over the word of a random internet blogger.

That's fine and all, but keep in mind that professionals (especially in gray areas such as psychiatry and psychology; those not understood very well are easier to distort the truth in) are only well trained in the area that they have been taught to think in. Being a professional is not a guarantee of critical thinking ability, in fact, many professional psychiatrists have been trained to be obedient to authority, which is why when someone questions authority they have a tendency to consider it as a deficit or even a disease, but not vice versa. It also cripples their ability to think critically. Combine this with a nonsensical positive reputation for phd's in which those who have such a degree are extolled regardless of what they are saying, and you have a recipe for disaster. Now, I'm not saying that all PhD's are bullshit; in fact, most are not, at least not in other areas. Although there are exceptions and some small subjective areas, a PhD in hard biology, hard chemistry, hard physics, or surgery (just to name a few) almost definitely will have a fundamentally better understanding than myself in every area of the subject. This is because these sciences and training processes are objective and based on sound scientific reasoning, unlike psychiatry, thus not open to nearly as much interpretation or skewing.

So why are there no (or very few) peer reviewed journals that support anti-psychiatric literature? The reason is simple: such is devastating in the form that it disrupts peoples consumerist leanings and mindsets, fostering a spirit of critical thinking that looks towards a much more complex system of emotional deficits, breakdown of families, and institutionalization of society. This not only goes against big pharma's drugging, but the entire status quo, and could cost millions for those in power. The pharmaceutical corporations, who naturally fund much of these supposedly 'objective' journals through ads in cooperation with the APA and other organizations often will ban 'controversial' literature because of 'low readership'. And there you have it, unwarranted censorship with a different name. In fact, when Bruce Levine, the author of an institutionally critical book entitled 'Commonsense rebellion' was interviewed for a piece in a medical journal, THIS is what transpired:

"On August 24, 2001, a freelance reporter, Joyce Frieden, working for the Clinical Psychiatry News Interviewed me. Frieden's general line of questioning was around (1) What is your newly published book (COMMONSENSE REBELLION: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society-An A to Z Guide to Rehumanizing Our Lives) all about? (2) You are speaking to America's psychiatrists, what advice do you have for them? Several weeks later, the publicist my publisher had hired to promote Commonsense Rebellion (and who had set up the interview) emailed me this: "I just got a call from Joyce Frieden who did the interview with Clinical Psychiatry News. She said, unfortunately, the editor 'nixed' the article saying it would be too much of a hard sell for their readers."

http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/December01/CommonsenseRebellion.htm


Sound fair and objective? Obviously not. What is put in these psychiatric journals is reflective of what is popular, not of what is scientific or sensible. This is alarming because the whole field is very gray and subjective, thus easily manipulated, and this blatantly shows that one side is being excluded for the benefit of those in power in the establishment.

Why do so many doctors support these ideas? It's simple. Not only are they taught to be exceedingly obedient (which as I stated before, impairs their ability to think outside what they have been taught), but they have been taught this from the start of their 'medical career' with pharma based education. This extreme over representation of one view and extreme under representation of all others is why so many buy into the system. Also, the idea that all emotions are 'medical' and that there are well defined, strict criteria for 'physical' and 'non physical' processes influences these beliefs in bio-medical views. Many will demand objective scientific evidence that these 'disorders' do NOT exist. The problem is that the burden is on the psychiatric establishment to prove that these disorders are 'medically based' and 'treatable'.

Critics of psychiatry do commonly state that there is no objective scientific evidence to prove their views, but rather social critique and common sense. Many of us also acknowledge that our science is far inferior to the level necessary to understand the fine workings of the brain on a physical level, but many also understand that perhaps an artificial, chemical approach is not the best one because we respond to the environment (if the brain and consciousness were indeed just a series of chemical reactions, which we do not know).

Why do many 'prestigious' sources say that criticism of psychiatry is invalid because it has no objective scientific evidence? Because sensitivity to ones' surroundings and high emotional intelligence do not necessarily have any correlation with how 'prestigious' and accepted something is. In fact, that entity may have obtained it's reputation from other fields (any ivy league university), which makes having someone from such an institution backing the establishment's view a powerful tool. Popularity is also not necessarily an indication of quality, either.

The psychiatric establishment falsely tries to paint the dynamics of emotion and emotional deficit as a science, and then tries to apply Occam's Razor. This leads to a gross simplification of something far more complex than many understand. If we can admit that understanding emotions is not within our current scientific capability (and perhaps never should be), perhaps we can grow emotionally and enrich our lives and the lives of those around us.

"A simple lie is easier to accept than a complex truth"

Again, one can completely disregard everything I have said because I am not a trained professional, but I do not see how one could sincerely believe that such a one sided and biased teaching method can instill higher levels of critical thinking in its 'pupils'. Once again, university experience or a degree does not necessarily make you qualified for something (though this is the belief of many), and this especially rings true in areas that are gray and not well understood, such as trying to understand peoples' behaviors. Only under a context in which students can critique their own society can an unbiased and emotionally intelligent perspective arise.