psychiatry

It is not my assertions that leave anyone to die, it is the ignorance and lack of means, at least, of how to save them, and that is not my fault, and it has no causality to my assertions. It's not an effect of it, it is not a result of it, not even a conclusion of my assertions.

"Not currently having the technology to measure a part of reality is not synonymous with that reality being false.", it is false in the sense there is no proof it is true. Therefore it cannot be claimed it is true, and if it's not true, then by necessity it is false. Excluded middle.

And that is important because then it can't be used as a premise to argue from them, that requires IT to be true. So saying people will die if we do nothing requires proving that IS true in each and every case.

Medicine can do that in many cases, psychiatry and clinical psychology can not. They can't prove anything because the truthfulness in a logical sense of their assertions is not necessarily true. And by excluded middle false.

No argument can be built with premises that are not true. Except in reductio. Like saying something saves lives to prove that it is true it does not, it's negation. That it is false it saves lives.

But, rhetorically, something might be not proven and considered true, even self evident and be outside science. Not scientific but still be considered true OUTSIDE science. Like the love of God. All persons, human ones, are born free.

I am not talking about those truths in the colloquial or philosophical sense. Even in philosophy those can be true and ARE outside science.

Medicine is science based even if it's an art. It has philosophy, epistemics, politics and ideology, which is part of my point not clearly stated. As it has, prejudice, bigotry, ideology, creed, fraud and hate. The whole works, in principle, of the non-scientific. Part of my point exactly, not clearly stated.

My comment is directed, has the intention, to see what is scientific in medicine from what is not. I was not negating that medicine, as human activity, has non science in it, nor that it shoud not. That ALL medicine should be scientific: no, I know that is not the case, and I believe it should not be wholy scientific.

But interventions that causally save lives require truths beyond doubt. Otherwise they are not causally linked to any positive outcome, they can't be. Strictly speaking they can't even be experimented without truths beyond doubt. They would be empirical findings without theoretical basis. Mere correlations from imaginary "constructs", as such unreal...

Your last paragraph seems an attribution to my comment that I don't follow it's connection to. I did not say that and my intention was not to lead anyone to conclude that.

Someone needing care does not mean either care is available, it should be given nor that anyone has to provide it, among others. Particularly if that care is not causally linked to the outcome.

It would be forcing to give a treatment that is useless for the sufferer. No one can be obligated to provide that. But I am not a lawyer. And that is something psychiatry HAS to argue to be off the hook: their treatments in the aggregate are at least useless.

Or worse, as in psychiatry, that causes more harm than benefit, at great expense when meassured in the aggregate of all it's victims. Even including those benefiting from it.

And in some places one cannot provide a treatment for the benefit of someone else. If a third benefits somehow, the other two thirds need to consent, at least, explictly that the benefit might or will accrue to someone else, like a transplant from a living donor. And even then, that might be forbidden as is the case of psychiatric treatment in Mexico: it cannot be given for the benefit of someone else. That leads to abuse and harm to someone who will not benefit, at least.

And it provides perverse incentives as in payed organ donation.

Again, I am not a lawyer, so the details, caveats, etc., of that I don't know.

Thanks, I liked your comment. :)