Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <12574@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 03:41:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12574
Posted: Sun Mar 23 03:41:28 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 03:30:04 EST
References: <635@hou2f.UUCP> <97400003@uiucdcs> <107@gilbbs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <107@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes:
>   You obviously have a strong negative view of psychology and psychiatric
>therapy.  You are welcome to them, and welcome to express them.  Unless you
>are able to produce significant evidence to support your claims, however,
>you have no right to label such therapy as "quack medical treatment".

   Personally I believe in modern psychiatry.  However...

   It seems absurd to claim that it is his responsibility to prove that
therapy is worthless (or detrimental).  Does the FDA have to prove that
a medication is worthless in order to ban it?
   Such negative proofs are both very difficult and completely inappropriate.
I guarantee that I can invent "treatments" far more quickly and cheaply than
you can prove them ineffective.  Should I be permitted to promulgate their
use as "cures"?

   -- David desJardins