(October 12, 2015 at 8:59 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 8:55 pm)Losty Wrote: You're not making sense. If you believe in god, you wouldn't go to see a doctor about hearing his voice because you wouldn't consider it an illness.
I do want my doctor to be knowledgable about my condition, but I don't have any god believing conditions and if I did I doubt I would consider them a condition. So religious or atheist, there's never a reason to ask your doctor about their religious views. I think asking someone you don't know personally about their religious views is rude.

well since diagnosis is based on personal views and opinions i think its important to know what those personal views are .

The diagnosis of anyone practicing any type of medicine will be based on the science done in their field, not their opinions or personal views. Or, they shouldn't be practicing at all.

(October 12, 2015 at 9:13 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Losty Wrote: No it is not. A medical diagnosis is based on medical knowledge. Otherwise anyone could be a doctor

were not talking about a medical doctor whos diagnosis is based on established science were talking about psychiatrists who treat the mind and thats not based on science its only based on opinions of the psychiatrists and what unscientific theories that they believe in .

Yea because there is absolutely no medical or scientific research for mental illness.

(October 12, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Hmmm? Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Losty Wrote: @hmmm

I am the kitten and Evie is my best turtle

Awww, I love that...I'll try to keep the two of you straight

We actually considered using that one hehe.

(October 12, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Losty Wrote: @hmmm

I am the kitten and Evie is my best turtle

hey dont start getting all cute and loveable now ...

(you can if you want and i hope im not offending you with my passionate opinions either)

I believe each of us is born with that personal relationship. But I have few problems with your "points".

1) Both parties in the relationship exist, and are easily distinguishable from being imaginary.

Being imaginary, is up to how much knowledge you have. A person from the stone age would laugh at you for ages if you told him that there are "little men called viruses" that infect his body.
So imaginary or not is up to how big your mind can actually extend. Denying the existence of black holes, never proved that black holes don't exist.

Anyhow, No other problems here; moving on.

Quote:3) Both parties directly communicate with the other party in a meaningful, observable way.

In this way, I can have personal relationship with any human, any animal that has some way to at least acknowledge my interaction with it, and arguably with an artificial intelligence. It seems to me that if these 3 criteria are not met, it is not a meaningful personal relationship. The only exception I can think of is where one party becomes unable to communicate at some point, such as a friend going into a coma. You could maybe argue that you can continue to have a personal relationship with them, based on your history together, even though they can't directly answer back.

I have a big problem here. What if the opposing side is communication through a language you can't actually get ?
Keeping it short; God communicates with us daily, through natural phenomena. That sweet sunshine, the pretty moonlight, a windy day carrying warm breeze, didn't you hear the voice near the sea ?

Away from all of that, pray and that's your part of the conversation now; good acts too are a good way to communicate. If you demands a direct reply, then your mind didn't understand yet that it doesn't communicate with a deity different than humans..

Even with animals you can't get a direct response all the time.

So, yep..

Check the cherry blossom

Or maybe the stars ?

(October 12, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Losty Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 9:13 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: were not talking about a medical doctor whos diagnosis is based on established science were talking about psychiatrists who treat the mind and thats not based on science its only based on opinions of the psychiatrists and what unscientific theories that they believe in .

Yea because there is absolutely no medical or scientific research for mental illness.

research but different interpretations of that research thats why there are different diagnosis' if it wasnt based on interpretation and opinion every other psych would not have a different diagnosis they would all agree .

(October 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Losty Wrote: @hmmm

I am the kitten and Evie is my best turtle

hey dont start getting all cute and loveable now ...

(you can if you want and i hope im not offending you with my passionate opinions either)

I am always cute and lovable

What we have for psychology is nearly a century of pretty much consistent diagnosis styles that have helped us categorise many different types of mental illness and have allowed us to treat, quite successfully, though, of course not 100%.

The thing about psychology, like medicine, and like science as a whole, is that we're learning more every time.

(October 12, 2015 at 9:34 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 8:59 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: well since diagnosis is based on personal views and opinions i think its important to know what those personal views are .

The diagnosis of anyone practicing any type of medicine will be based on the science done in their field, not their opinions or personal views. Or, they shouldn't be practicing at all.

the mind cannot be put into a petri dish and studied like doctors can study a virus , diagnosis is based not on science but on interpretation of symptoms and what the psych thinks the problem is just as many will disagree with him as those who agree .

---

(October 12, 2015 at 9:48 pm)Beccs Wrote: What we have for psychology is nearly a century of pretty much consistent diagnosis styles that have helped us categorise many different types of mental illness and have allowed us to treat, quite successfully, though, of course not 100%.

The thing about psychology, like medicine, and like science as a whole, is that we're learning more every time.

but unlike medicine or science , theories involving the mind will continue to be debated - agreed by some and disagreed by just as many each and every new theory that someone invents , its no more scientific than religion is .

(October 12, 2015 at 9:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 9:34 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: The diagnosis of anyone practicing any type of medicine will be based on the science done in their field, not their opinions or personal views. Or, they shouldn't be practicing at all.

the mind cannot be put into a petri dish and studied like doctors can study a virus , diagnosis is based not on science but on interpretation of symptoms and what the psych thinks the problem is just as many will disagree with him as those who agree .

---

(October 12, 2015 at 9:48 pm)Beccs Wrote: What we have for psychology is nearly a century of pretty much consistent diagnosis styles that have helped us categorise many different types of mental illness and have allowed us to treat, quite successfully, though, of course not 100%.

The thing about psychology, like medicine, and like science as a whole, is that we're learning more every time.

but unlike medicine or science , theories involving the mind will continue to be debated - agreed by some and disagreed by just as many each and every new theory that someone invents , its no more scientific than religion is .

You act like no doctor has ever misdiagnosed cancer, heart disease, etc...

That's what second opinions are for.

Or, you can just go ahead with your theory bullshit idea that a doctor who is predisposed to a particular idea (religious psychiatrist) is better able to provide an unbiased diagnosis.