jeroldharter said:
Wayne's denial of the existence of biologically based mental illness seems odd. A brain is the most difficult organ to study. Apart from cutting up a dead brain what can you do? MRI's, which are relatively recent inventions, show gross anatomy and PET scans can show gross physiology. But the technology is still lacking. Nevertheless, there are a number of documented brain differences in various mental illnesses but nothing pathognomonic yet. Also, prove the null hypothesis that brains of patients with mental illness function normally. That can't be done either. A reasonable person would at least suspend judgement.
The burden of proof is generally placed on those claiming the existence of something which is invisible, for the very reason that the null hypothesis is rather impossible to prove.
I am quite reasonable. I never denied that a mental illness could be biological, I said that there was not a single mental illness PROVEN to be biological disease, and the evidence for such a conclusion was highly debateable. A true disease in the medical sense has diagnostic morphological or functional pathology. No pathology= no confirmed disease. You may call it a possible disease, a potential disease, or anything else that clearly indicates the lack of certainty. The failure to do so shows who is and who isnt suspending judgement.
Now look at article titles from the National Institue of Mental Health
"Largest Study to Date on Pediatric Bipolar Disorder Describes Disease Characteristics And Short-Term Outcomes". Or how about this " The Invisible Disease: Depression".
Since there is in fact no proven disease , which you have admitted, (semantic arguments about patients having a "lack of ease" notwithstanding), how "reasonable" would you say these titles are? NIMH is the lead Federal agency for research on mental and behavioral disorders. Have they "suspended judgement"?