No. But it does remind us to take what they say with a grain of salt.
So you're admitting that you have no grounds to say that the APA's declaration that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, is wrong?
I never said homosexuality was wrong, but rather based on an imbalance. I believe the same of ADHD and dyslexia. Some people eat dirt. Its seen as a disease. Other places on Earth people eat dirt for health purposes. Imbalance? It depends whom you ask. Some people eat their own shit, its also in the merk as a disease. Yet monkeys and many animals do it as well. I believe that these are the arguments for homosexuality as "natural" and therefore healthy. I don't buy it. Maybe there is a place on Earth where homosexuality is the norm. In my world putting your dick in a man's butthole is as silly as eating poo or eating dirt.
Most of what is known is based on hypothesis and guesswork, very little is based on fact.
Hypotheses are based almost entirely on facts; anything that's only "guesswork" is not known
by definition (otherwise we wouldn't be guessing, would we?).
I don't think you know what
a fact is. These "Facts" you are referring to change, particularly in medicine. You want to believe some kind of infallability because you are afraid that if you get sick you will be in the hands of someone else and you prefer to believe they know what
they are doing. The only fact is that all medicine is experimental and that every time you repeat the experiment with no guarantee. There are so many variables in humans with everything from the weather, sleeping patterns, mental states and diet affecting drug interactions.
It is sort of understood.. In fact even better in journals of psyconeuroimmunology. Again when I said "they don't know" I wasn't referring to researchers, but those in practice who don't bother to read. Otherwise treatment protocols would change and they don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]
t. Nsaids and opiods will both counter the body's ability to have a "placebo effect". oops. Well if they know, then they are cruel and/or lazy. With a little digging they could do both. I know how and I have. I have also taught patients to engage their own placebo effect for years now with great effect. Its called qi gong and in other countries particularly in asia, it is studied. Specific postures use the diaphram to massage the adrenal glands..to stimulate...cortical hormones. Other techniques help produce seratonin. This is based on Qi Bo saying 3,000 years ago that the heart and kidneys have a mutially dependent hormonal cycle and that "when the heart is serent pain is negligible. But...I shouldn't mention any such savagery, because the tests haven't been done on US soil and therefor don't exist.
Knowing that it occurs half the time without knowing what it is or how it works or how many mechanisms contribute to it creates a pretty big question mark.
We know what
it is, how it works, and roughly how many mechanisms contribute to it - at the least. I also still have no idea what
this "half the time" thing you're repeating means.
Not even close, otherwise min medications would be used and more emphasis would be placed on the body's own healing system. Placebo occurs roughly half the time. There are more mechanims than they have found and it goes deeper, but for the time being I will have to let the savages call an airplane a metal bird.
And yet, much of the diagnostic criteria are based on his theories.
Are you talking about the DSM-IV? Because I can't find any criteria there that's based on Freud; those criteria are medical criteria and so they are all determined by experimental process and observation - not Freud's untested guesswork.
The DSM4 is filled with diagnostics which are not based on endocrine levels so much as tendencies toward behavior. (medical criteria) as you put it means nothing. It does not represent a value of any kind. The framework from which they have been observing is based on freuds and others' work as early psycologists. After being trained to think like psycologies founders they then went and observed through this lens. Look up Amok disorder. Besides being orientalist, the diagnosis is basically that some asian men get insulted and be freakin out. Clearly the hard scientific work of "medical criteria"
No more of less valid than any other tradition 100 years old based on a holy man or shaman.
Yes. And those traditions are also bullshit, and are also not part of our diagnostic criteria.
So they are bullshit after observation over time, but ours, being 100 years old are sound? what
you choose to observe are based on assumptions, culture and values.
Almost nothing used in medicine is based on scienfitic law.
Except for creating it. Because medications and treatments must undergo rigorous experimental verification to ensure they work and how they work. Oops.
I'm very familiar with what
medications must go through to get authorised. Its part of my job. It is still not based on scientific law. They must demonstrate a mechanism, however, which mechanism a substance has (there are plenty) depends largely on marketing. Take my mum as an example. They must pass guidelines for safety, efficacy and demonstrate efficacy mechanistically. You make the assumption that because anatomy can be seen to a very detailed degree that the interrelationships within the body are understood to an equal degree, they are not. Physiology as taught to French MD's is different than in the US. There are many different theories about physiology. This will affect what
people observe and how they observe it. Oops. How many drug applications have you filled out? You have a lot of blind faith in medicine and believe all aquired knowlege to be fact and yet know very little about it. Don't worry, you aren't alone. We've barely scratched the surface.
what values do not come from religion or are not analagously seen in them?
The United States Constitution. And "analogously seen in them" is irrelevant here.
False. The United States Constitution was based on the men who wrote it who came from a Judeo-Christian/Deist background. This fundamentally guided their sense of right and wrong.
what more is a religion than a set of values?
A set of specific beliefs in unverifiable supernatural phenomena which are not part of the shared objective experience of reality, and therefore are not applicable to all human beings - and which are specifically prohibited from being woven into our government to certain degrees.
And yet married people are rewarded and sodomy was illegal as was usery. I'm sure this had nothing to do with the Torah.