Scholarship of Consensus and Diseases that Make you Smart

Are you implying that there is a 'conspiracy theory' behind all of this? I don't think that this is the case at all, but I think that it's just an approach that some psychiatrists happen to use. It's not as if there's some central 'command' that tells every psychiatrist how to treat patients though. All you must do is do a pschyology degree and become a psychiatrist to see that this isn't the case.

Are you implying that there is a 'conspiracy theory' behind all of this? I don't think that this is the case at all, but I think that it's just an approach that some psychiatrists happen to use. It's not as if there's some central 'command' that tells every psychiatrist how to treat patients though. All you must do is do a pschyology degree and become a psychiatrist to see that this isn't the case.

No.

You were bound to say that! Don't worry - I'm not a crooked pesron at all. What you see of me is what you get and I don't trick anyone. You have nothing to fear dude.

Take care,
kevin

Sorry that there is not more interest in the topic

So if two "professionals" have scholarship of consensus that you are delusional, then you are; but if two "patients" agree that the doctor is evil, then they have shared psychosis?

Funny how that goes.

While validifying evidence and testing hypothesis through peer-review are hallmarks of science, I would agree that simply agreeing does not make a thing so.

I read a church marquee once that read "A thousand people can't be wrong." I thought to myself "What about hindus, buddists, muslims, or jews? There's millions of each of them. Does this church consider them all right simply because they are more numerous?"

Probably not.

Moss

"Might does not make right."

Long time since I visited this forum.

the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum

Actually, the reports do make a note of the improvement on the cognitive tests:

report 2004: "testing indicates mrs. Morhrrer is in the very superior range of intellectual functioning. Compared to data obtained 6 months after her accident, this is a significant improvement."

report 2008: "Caucasian woman who was struck by a moving vehicle in 2000 and suffered bodily injury. The patient reported that she experienced cognitive limitations after the accident which have significantly improved with time"

She got had head trauma from the accident, it's not suprising her scores were lower after the accident, it can take many years to fully recover from such head trauma. Also, IQ tests are not exact science, they will always be slightly different even if completed by the same person.

I do believe that what you call scholarship of consensus happens, but I don't that was the case here. And scholarship of consensus happens unfortunately with every kind of 'scholar', including doctors and scientists. That's why the greatest scientists are always those that dare to think differently.