Posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 9, 2000, at 0:29:42
In reply to Re: BIOLOGY or PSYCHOLOGY ?, posted by boB on April 8, 2000, at 22:09:00
> (reference to list in previous post)
> > These are not symptoms. They are clinical diagnoses. I don't believe I listed or referred to a single symptom of anything in my previous post.
> DSM-IV diagnoses are a nomenclature for groups of symptoms.No. I don't think so. My unschooled perception of the DSM is that it is a listing of the clinical diagnoses of specific named medical conditions for which each is prescribed a precise algorithm of symptom identification and inclusion based upon observational statistics. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.
> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you believe that biology is the causative agent?
> >
> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you believe that biology is the agent for its perpetuation?
> >
> > Of the diagnoses I have listed, are there any for which you are sure that biology is neither the causative agent nor the agent for its perpetuation?> Of the diagnoses you have listed, the observation of the clinical practioner is the causative agent.
This is witty, but shallow and meaningless rhetoric. Of course, I'm supposed to append a IMHO. I would still be interested to see your response to at least one of these questions.
> The practitioner's preference for a common nomenclature,
I should hope a practitioner would be in favor of the use of a common (standardized) nomenclature. Don't you?
> in this case DSM-IV, causes the practitioner to form an opinion based upon the practitioner's observation of symptoms.
I prefer the word "encourages" to "causes". It just sounds better to me.
> The practitioner's opinion is known as a diagnosis.
The practitioner's choice of a particular diagnosis is his opinion.
> The diagnostic methods inferred by DSM-IV's inventory of diagnoses include subjective and projective tests, but not as often chemical tests or biologal measurements. The nomenclature of DSM-IV was derived from the review of collected data, which included data derived by subjective tests, objective tests and neurobiological research.Sounds pretty good. I am particularly fond of your use of the word "method". It reminds me a bit of the word "algorithm".
> Biology is the study of biological relationships and conditions.I know I can be a stickler for words. The definition of biology is both simpler and broader.
BIOLOGY:
The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.
* biology \Bi*ol"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ? life + -logy: cf. F. biologie.] The science of life; that branch of knowledge which treats of living matter as distinct from matter which is not living; the study of living tissue. It has to do with the origin, structure, development, function, and distribution of animals and plants.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.* Unfortunately, this definition leaves out such things as protistans, bacteria, fungi, and, depending on who you listen to, viruses. (Personally, I don't see how viruses cannot be considered life. Although viruses really do suck, they still use DNA, even though they have to steal it).
> All human action, even religion, is caused and perpetuated by biological relationships because every living thing is classified as a biological organism. Biological conditions are clearly involved in the causation and perpetuation of all of the classifications of symptoms to which you refer.And these truths we hold to be self-evident.
Looking back on my original post, I see that I mentioned something about it being important to understand that not all psychological and emotional troubles are biological in origin. I also notice that I stated an opinion that it is important that we treat both the biological and the psychological. Additionally, I don't see that I have specified any biological treatments. Drugs would be included, but not exclusive.
I'm not really sure why we are having this discourse. What is your thesis?
Sincerely,
Scott
poster:Scott L. Schofield
thread:29296
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/29384.html