Autism is a "mental" disorder??

Post Reply New Topic

If anything is in your head, it is a mental disorder.
AS is in your head.
Therefore the AS is a mental disorder.

Sorry, it doesn't add up, look:

If anything is in your head, it is a mental disorder.
Neurotypical is in your head.
Therefore neurotypical is a mental disorder.

If anything is in your head, it is a mental disorder.
A passing thought is in your head.
Therefore a passing thought is a mental disorder.

If anything is in your head, it is a mental disorder.
Basic arithmetic is done in your head.
Therefore basic arithmetic is a mental disorder.

If anything is in your head, it is a mental disorder.
Your memories are in your head.
Therefore your memories are a mental disorder.

Strictly, the conclusion is "AS is a disorder and is mental", which is, pragmatically, a quite odd tense (hence the correction).

With that detail, both arguments are valid. And so yours. But your initial argument is not logically derived from League_Girl's statement.

DSM

Which is begging the question and doesn't fit anything in the premise.

No they're not valid, you can see that in my examples. The argument is not mine, it doesn't look like you know what's going on.

This is another one called ad verecundiam. It's where a source is touted as credible, to give credence to their argument, when in reality the source isn't credible to the subject.

When you formalized League_Girl's argument, you twisted it. That's it.

Replacing the conclusion of my original argument for the "formally" correct tense (and pragmatically odd) results in a valid argument (conclusion contained in premises), which I think suits League_Guirl's idea.

Uh no, you took what I first wrote out of context so I added in the DSM to make it more clear to you. We are clearly talking about disorders and about autism being one or not and you just went off topic that was irrelevant to the discussion.

My foot is out of context, you made an argument as to why AS is a mental disorder. You want to start hedging and chop and changing your argument, but then include the DSM, that's fine. That makes it easier, ad verecundiam, your argument is invalid.

Uh, no, explaining why your argument doesn't hold water isn't going off topic, that you would classify it as such is troubling.

Yes, and that's why it's sometimes better with words.

Ok, so you found an example where the slang term is not commonly used. That alone doesn't mean all the meanings for other words are useless and inaccurate.

You can even see that meaning used in quite a few other dictionaries. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/mental

Take the word "Cool" for example: The common usage for "Cool" is as a way to describe something that's likable, while the proper usage for that word pertains to temperature. While it's possible to say "It's quite cool", no one really does that anymore, everyone says "It's quite cold", or "It's quite chilly", and they do that to avoid confusion. This is because the primary usage of the word "Cool" is to describe something that's likable, similar to how the primary usage of the word "Mental" is to mean crazy, mad, insane.

And yet the APA did away with the word "Syndrome". Well, how far are you going to get by describing yourself as a crazy person, or worse, everyone already thinking you're a crazy person.

True story time.

Some time ago, I was down at a different medical clinic than I'm used to. I'm at the appointment, right, she mentions the treatment, and hands me a leaflet for the treatment itself, some program I'm not familiar with. So I read over the information leaflet and discover it's exclusively for severe mental illness. I explain to her "Um, there's been some mistake, I don't have a mental illness." And you know what she says to me? Big smile on her face, "Asperger's IS a mental illness." So, I tried to very gently explain that Asperger's isn't mental illness at all, yet find I have to explain away all sorts. I got such nuggets like; "It's in a medical handbook", and "1000 psychologists believe it's mental illness", then scoffing at the idea of these '1000 psychologists' being wrong. So after about 10-20 minutes she starts scowling like a demon, and out came the claws "You are here for mental illness." Which I certainly wasn't. "We can keep arguing about it, but you'll just be wasting my time and yours. Is that clear?"

After a very lengthy Health quality and complaints process, I found out what she meant by "medical handbook", it was the DSM-5. During the process her side of the story was that it IS mental illness, and cites the DSM-5. But it got worse, much worse. Health quality and complaints also looked through the DSM-5, and came to the same conclusion, that it's mental illness. Also, as part of the process, the complaint was sent to the medical board, that is, an entire board of medical professionals and guess what consensus they came to? Yep, they collectively looked through the DSM-5 and went "Oh yeah, that's mental illness alright." So the response I get from Health quality and complaints is basically: "We've determined that it was mental illness, and so has the medical board, therefore we have sufficiently dealt with and closed your complaint."

Now, this happening, it's not some freakish isolated incident now is it. I've met lots of NT's and even some AS people have thought, or think, that it's mental illness, some even citing the DSM. And the ones that adamantly believe it's mental illness, saying to them "Oh no, it's not mental as in mental, it just means, "of the mind"." I don't think that's going to get anywhere, they've already their own meaning and their own interpretation, and you're not going to sway them when you don't even have peerage for starters. The OP even, it's more than possible that the OP saw that catch phrase somewhere, thought it looked like mental illness and posted about it.

I didn't change anything. You just misunderstood and if you don't want to accept it, that is fine and we can agree to disagree.

Oh excuse me,

It's in your head and anything from the DSM that is in your head is mental so of course this would be a mental condition so mental disorder.

Better?

See if you can twist that.

There's no misunderstanding, you made a fallacious argument when you stated that AS is a mental disorder. I pointed out the fallacy, you hedged it, and in doing so added more fallacy. Because it's not a valid argument, nor should you or anyone else accept it, it's invalid.

No, I explain this already. The argument goes from "mental" to "mental disorder" without rhyme or reason. "Mental" to "mental condition" to "mental disorder", just because, no "twisting" from me.

I also explained why it's not valid. Simply repeating "it's valid" over and over, will not suddenly make it valid. What? Conclusion contained in the premise? I think you're thoroughly lost.

It's in your head and anything in your head is mental so of course this would be a mental condition so mental disorder.

Mental disorder - and unusual difference in the brain causing abnormal function, often caused by external factors (trauma being an example).
.

Yes, League_Girl's argument was a fallacy (or just a argument with a hidden premise and a pragmatically correctedd conlcusion), that's why I'm saying that you twisted it, because you turn the fallacy into a valid argument (More in 4).

1) Have you read my posts? Because I have stated the corrected conclusion of my argument. I rewrite the complete argument (not only the conclusion) and in a more clearly form (condense, separate or redistribute ad libitum):

AS is a disorder;
As is also in your head;
If anything is in your head, it is mental;
Therefore AS is a disorder and is mental.

2) Do you know the difference between validity and soundness?

3) Are you using logic or something else?

4) Have you read League_Girls's first statement right?



It's in your head
and anything in your head is mental
so of course this would be a mental condition so mental disorder.

The conclusion is not derived from the premises, so you twisted the premises to make it valid.

I explained this already, there's no "twisting" going on. League jumps from mental to mental disorder, you don't have to include those in the argument, you just do the same. There's no reason to include "mental" or "mental condition" anywhere, you can just cut that part out and go right to "mental disorder" because that's what the argument is, and doing so is not "twisting", that's just how League's argument is.

No it is NOT valid. Judging by your questions it doesn't look like you're taking me very seriously. You have no idea how frustrating that is, especially when it's coming from someone that emphatically states up and down that it's valid, when I've provided examples as to why it's not, and looking at it, you can plainly see that it's NOT valid. From someone that shoves conclusions in or around the premise, and calls it valid, and doesn't seem to understand what I mean when I say it's begging the question. The consequent is propped up, you can clearly see this, you can see that it's not the end all condition for mental disorder, the only way for it to be valid would be to put not in front of both.