Last.
Consequences of Acting as if the Mind was Real.
I remind myself that all mind issues are humanities not sciences. The results or consequences of the mind and it’s study methods, of having no logic is that no experiment coming out of them has logic, no useful empiricism for or in the real world, and therefore no use in a rational world. Psychiatric drugs therefore have never been studied neither scientifically nor empirically, even as mere correlations: empirical correlations require a measuring apparatus. They can’t be used because they can’t be experimented for mind issues, for mind affairs. Therefore all experiments in animals and human subjects that caused harm, in that scale, are actually crimes against humanity or monstrous animal cruelty for psychiatric “reasons”. I am not a lawyer and not giving medical, scientific nor legal advice. It’s merely scientific epistemics, no discussion beyond that basis is useful: is talking rhetoric not science. Arguing methodological aspects of “internal validity”, disorder definitions, etc., BEFORE addressing the immateriality of the mind, the illogical use of words referring to emotions for example, is actually a deception. Is pretending to argue from premises that will lead to contradictions. Even in the methodology that pretends to pass internal validity as empirically valid. It cannot be in the etymological sense of the word: something to stand on.
Using the word validity in “internal validity” is twice deception: uses a word that means an argument has been constructed according to the rules of logic, validity, to conceal or deceive that the premises, by the mere words in them, will inevitably lead to contradictions. There is another problem in “building” the tools, the questionnaires. I can presume that the simile of validity, the rules of logic, to psychiatric or psychological “validity” questionnaires will use words inevitably that refer to the mind itself, also illogical in trying to build any tool to assess mind stuff. Rhetorical rules to build rhetorical measurements, not logical rules to build logical instruments. Thrice deception.
The so called internal validity of psychology and psychiatry in it’s measuring pseudo-apparatuses is nothing more than an obfuscation of the word COINCIDENCE. They use internal validity tests for things that have no logic beyond coincidence, and with words and assuming and by means that will lead to contradictions. They are not weighting scales, no physical rulers. They pretend to measure immaterial things by coincidence between two people taught to coincide. That is some coincidence by the way that caused great harms to animals and human, even as “mere” research subjects. That is clearly documented, just, I think not seen in this light. Those psychiatric medications should be STOPPED in it’s use and research and reparations should be in order. Psychiatry and clinical psychology are not sciences either, if used they should be clearly labeled as such, and stressing that NO empiricism can be used in them: mere rhetoric, no experiments apply to them either. I think. But, psychiatric medications cannot be stopped abruptly nor too suddenly. I need people to really read, think, and understand this text and the one that speaks about the immateriality of the mind. If I am right, and enough people are truly convinced then…
As a conclusion: Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry use rhetorical rules, with illogical words, then on illogical words to build “instruments” on which at least two people agree consistently that it measures something useful, even something real. That sounds broadly speaking too crazy to me. And some believe from now on it will be rational to use that stuff… I strongly disagree…
Thanks.
Federico Soto del Alba.