In Reply to: Re: For Gawds sake people lets get some perspective posted by AND on February 15, 2006 at 00:05:17:

I'm afraid you are still mixing things up, mainly because you have fetishised science and science-based journals. In my, quite extensive experience, all major academic presses in the humanities and social sciences have at least three peer reviews of every book publication (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Boston, etc). I'm afraid i don't know how science books are vetted, nor do i intend to find out. I don't hold science journals as the unabridged truth as we know it, so it doesn't keep me up nights when I read a compelling argument with plenty of evidence that didn't happen to appear first in Science, nature or some lesser periodical that has the imprimatur of the hard science community. You have yet to address the major issue which I have raised again and again. This is not an issue simply for the 'hard sciences' to address as it is a cultural matter and is therefore up for debate in a context much wider than science. Journals, books, articles from the humanities and social sciences have a wholly legitimate and much needed contribution to make to this debate. if you disagree with this, and you think that the hard science have a monopoly on truth then speak up and we can end the discussion.

To address one or two other things: I never suggested that Prozac does not have a 'physical basis' (whatever that could mean). I said that it treats a (largely) psychological condition. It certainly has very physical effects - as anyone who has had a bad reaction to the stuff can tell you. there are some theories of ADHD floating around that hypothesise that ADHD (and its cognate 'conditions') may possibly have their root casues in a number of possible 'physical' problems (deficient hormone regulation, fetal oxygen deprivation, etc, etc), that have as much explanatory power as the claim that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality or heterosexuality (two 'orientations' 'discovered' at the end of the nineteenth century). We really need to copme to grips with the cultural reasons for our obsession with tracing every single social problem we have in the West to a bio-chemical or genetic problem.

Again, I have never suggested that ADHD is 'imaginary' (whatever that could mean): I said that it is a socio-cultural rather than a bio-chemical issue.

Finally, no one I know who is taken seriously in a university does most of their research on-line. Stretching the case to include the electronic printing of journal articles which are historically printed material doesn't really negate this. Such journal articles are not available to just anyone but require subscription to the journal either by you or the institution you are attached to. This is not really the same as simply putting words into a Google search engine and crossing your fingers.

It makes much more sense to address what is actually said in a post rather than what you wish was said.