Hablas fatal tio. .

I would imagine that there is some science in psychiatry. However, that science is few and far between.

Psychiatry suffers severely from the cognitive biases of the researchers: " Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get." [1]

Neurology is the study of the central nervous system. Which the brain and its software, the mind, are a part of.

Neurology is a hard science.

the attempt to explain psychopathology using the remarkable findings of neuroscience has thus far had no impact on psychiatric diagnosis or treatment. [2]

Psychiatrists are MDs.

Doctors.

Hard science.

Psych has as much hard science in it as any other sub-discipline of medicine.

same source ([2]):

The crucial translation from basic science to clinical practice is necessarily even more difficult in psychiatry than in the rest of medicine, because the human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe and reveals its secrets slowly and in small packets.

and

Psychiatric diagnosis must therefore still rely exclusively on fallible subjective judgments, not on objective biological tests. In the not too distant future, we will finally have laboratory methods for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease, but there is no pipeline of promising tests for any of the other mental disorders. Biological findings, however exciting, have never been robust enough to become test-worthy, because the within-group variability always drowns out the between-group differences. It appears certain that we will be stuck with descriptive psychiatry far into the distant future.

Don't denigrate things you don't understand.

Don't aggrandize things you don't understand.

We "worry" about peer review in science.

I didn't say otherwise, and I am rather (but not completely, as some naively are) fond of the process. It has flaws, but it works to a point. I envision something both more grand and yet more expensive (and yet also open to failures, for every human endeavor is), so peer review will continue to endure. It is not make it fool-proof, but it is better than many alternatives.

This website, on the contrary, is not a science website. It is a debating website. I will continue to provide sources from wherever I find them to back up the statements I want to make, as I'm sure you will. I'll agree instantly that psychology today is bullshit, but if I like what they're saying, I'm going to use it to back up my argument (whether I actually believe in the argument or not). It is called being specious, and I'm proud of it.

If I actually posted what I in my heart believe I would have to waste a lot more time than I'm willing to put into this site on figuring out what I do believe, for I really couldn't care less about belief. I laugh at certainty and consider the entire notion to be the realm of fools. There is no such thing as certainty, so rather than dogmatically cling to a belief, I prefer to take in all the information I can and twist it to make whatever argument I feel like making that moment.

This website looks interesting, but also suspect.

For instance, it is not peer reviewed; they state that they publish drafts on their site so that it can be publicly peer reviewed. Looking through the comments, people - the so-called 'peer reviewers', I suppose - scoffed at the arguments. The first commenter called it "wishful thinking".

Where are your legitimate peer-reviewed sources you haughtily stated you "roll" with?

-

I am not denying that there could be fact to this argument. I simply don't know, I'm no geologist. I am a reader, all I do is read. The more you read, the more you come to see that everybody has their own agenda and their own biases which are inextricably linked to their writings and, therefore, to their conclusions. However, until such time as I have absorbed both sides of the discussion, I shall remain with my consensus-based opinions because I consider that to be the closest one can come to truth without being a specialist in the field. I know of no such views which I disavow: whales are derived from land-mammals, RNA may have been the first "living thing", humans cause global warming. Most people dispute the latter out of pure bias without any information to back up their opinion. I cannot see how believing in the accepted scientific explanations can do anything but good for anybody who is not a specialist in the field in question, and thus I see no reason to debate the issue. However, I do not believe in absolute truth; there always is room for error, but that does not mean that one should believe everything to be erroneous, merely that everything may be erroneous but until determined otherwise one might as well just stick with what has been established.

mr slapshot now that's the on point debater I was seeking ...you had me worried that a kid stole your laptop and was pretending to be you....now back to this theory you present ...its deliciously full and robust and a taste outside my wheel house allow me to research (cheat a tad if you will ) on this theory and those who funded its study and those who have published its results ...I don't want to speak out of school here ....

this did I learned all I needed to first the Geneva convention held a scientific summit to find the world standard for organic ....this must be hydrogen oxygen and carbon .....mr rockafeller himself was the first to jump on calling oil organic and there for in limited supply ...evenhough this is the second most common liquid on earth he price set oil off the notion it was formed very slowly over long periods of time from decaying matter...when in fact any geologist will say and I quote there is a fossil line at or around 16000 ft there has never been a single mass fragment or atom of a fossil past this line ...yet "fossilfuel " lol is commonly mined at 28 to 33 thousand feet ....the fossil fuel theory aids in global price setting not real science .....oil isn't worth shit notice that when we want to collapse Russia we dropped almost overnight oil to around 40 bucks a barrel......but I thought we were at peak oil ...either its rare fossil fuel or I'm right and the rockafeller group is using and funding junk science to price set another comonity we need and use ...they tell us water is scarce now we bottle water and pay mega bucks ...they told us we were at peak oil and paying 4to 6 dollars a gallon and 120 bucks a barrel....but as soon as stopping putin is more important than propaganda they collapse the price.....we have to much ..I believe they said supply glut.....now as I try to tell people in science you can study and publish anything as long as they approve it ....its hard to find counter science as it goes against the mega money corps and there for gets shut down hard ....so if you believe oil is a fossil fuel because rockafeller tells you so well good luck in the matrix

I've gotta say, it is really upsetting whoever it is that always beats me to downvoting your shitty arguments. I want to get you down to 0, but I don't want to make your arguments automatically be hidden, so I'm left not being able to really do anything.

-

So, you post your conspiracy myth the powers that be don't want us to know arguments, and I'll post my conspiracy myth the powers that be don't want us to know arguments, and we just leave it at that - Capisce?

(after all, as bullshitty as those worthless pop psych shitrags are, I'd take whatever they say a hundred times over some idiot at a computer roaring about the government engaging in time travel!)

mr slap shot is project swiss watch worth digging into ......I don't want to run down a rabbit hole only to find propaganda and lies from the table top...