Disenchantment with science

Plenty of stuff to discuss in the world, with the focus on causes
Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »


I can accept that some therapists may have worked for you, but most therapies are based on poisonous pedagogy.


Have you considered the possibility to use your knowledge in Wikipedia? There are some articles that need attention, such as Biological psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy and more.
It turns out your friend John Modrow hit the nail on the head for virtually all skeptic websites on the net.... "a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots." Easy targets. I haven't seen skeptics look deeply into controversies between scientists about poor quality evidence for whatever theory is currently in vogue. Most skeptics seem to be the kind of fluffy-headed bimbos who say if it's orthodox among "real" scientists it must be correct. Anyone who's not ignorant of the history of science knows that orthodoxies come and go....
It would be lovely for example is you place this comment in the talk section of the Skeptical Inquirer article, just after my comment.
Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »


I just wrote:

>It would be lovely for example is

It should read:

>It would be lovely for example if
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Recruitment drive

Post by Bernard »

Thanks for the invitation, but the idea of doing frustrating work for no pay doesn't appeal. You've linked to your "little wars" at least twice before.... they make Wikipedia look like a place where battles could go on from now until doomsday. Biological psychiatry.... no doubt the controversy could fill volumes.
Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »

Actually, I was dragged to a long, time-consuming (1 month plus 20 days), wiki-trial for pushing my antipsych point of view in that article, a gallant fight. But finally I was acquitted as you can see here

To be on the arena fighting against the whole psych establishment was fun...