Can the consensus among authorities in some subject area be given the label "delusion"?

[PseuTonym]

Consider the example of blood-letting.

When he heard about Clerselier’s illness in November 1646, Descartes expressed a general scepticism about physicians and specific concerns about blood-letting. ‘I fear only that the doctors’ ignorance will cause them to make mistakes that will injure him. They were right to bleed him at the beginning … but because they are great supporters of blood-letting at Paris, I am afraid that when they notice that the blood-letting helped him they may continue with the same therapy and that will greatly weaken the brain without improving his bodily health.’ Descartes to Mersenne, 23 November 1646 (iv. 565).

Pages 476 to 477, Note 10
Descartes: A Biography
By Desmond M. Clarke

If the only information provided to you about the physician treating Clerselier was that the physician had a “delusional belief” in the positive value of blood-letting, then would you consider yourself to have been misled if you later discovered that the belief was the consensus view among physicians at the time?

Before a belief is established as the consensus view, it may be the view of a small minority. Before it becomes the consensus view, can it be a delusion? If we could somehow know that it would become the consensus view, then would we be prohibited from calling it a “delusion”, even if we knew that it would eventually be discredited?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, because today the word “consensus” is really just a code-word for silence, we are right and cannot be questioned because if we were our easy money or resources would be in jeopardy.

 

[Crusaderbear]

it seems delusions becoming consensus is happening more and more often. A lot of people believing something that is wrong may be considered a consensus, but it still isn’t true! Ehen consensus is reached by a few bullying the rest, it s flawed. When there is overwhelming evidence against a consensus view, then that view should be seen as delusional. Like the old saying goes, “only time will tell.”

 

[jcrichton]

Consider the example of blood-letting.

If the only information provided to you about the physician treating Clerselier was that the physician had a “delusional belief” in the positive value of blood-letting, then would you consider yourself to have been misled if you later discovered that the belief was the consensus view among physicians at the time?

Before a belief is established as the consensus view, it may be the view of a small minority. Before it becomes the consensus view, can it be a delusion? If we could somehow know that it would become the consensus view, then would we be prohibited from calling it a “delusion”, even if we knew that it would eventually be discredited?

Hi!

…the element here is the “delusion.”

The “delusion” was that blood-letting could cure many illnesses… it was a delusion because there was no actual proof and because the initial reaction form the patients was not sustained and brought into fruition by an actual cure.

While some illnesses benefited by blood-letting (this is still practiced in some cases where leaches are used medically) due to the agent/s affecting the patient’s health not all illnesses could be treated with blood-letting… and even those illnesses that had a good initial response, the deception/delusion would cause the physician to extend the blood-letting to a point that would harm rather then help the patient.

Yet, pride (god-complex) would engender the physician’s delusion that his knowledge/practice is in deed beneficial (I can cure the patient, even if it kills him/her).

…a consensus arises from a common practice/attitude, usually imposed (but sometimes self-imposed) by those in some level of authority; I can think of a couple of such examples: a) makeup, and b) dancing (we can throw in acting)–somehow the consensus arose that it was not lady-like to ware makeup or dance so only males engaged in these practices… there were no delusions attached to these consensuses, just pure ignorance (which, by the consensus of their particular times, it would be arguable that they acted out of ignorance)!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. When you are faced with a “consensus” you just have to ask how that consensus came to be. Was it formed by careful evaluation of evidence, or is it simply accepted because its tradition? Is there a consensus because the beliefs have proven to be effective, or is it because departing from the beliefs is punished? Is the consensus view tested regularly, or is “putting the belief to the test” considered wrong?

 

[PseuTonym]

Is there a consensus because the beliefs have proven to be effective … ?

A particular method might be effective in helping people to achieve a particular goal. What does it mean to say that a belief is effective? If we can somehow transform beliefs into methods … then maybe we could try to test the effectiveness of a method, and use the results of the test to tell us something about the associated belief.

Placebos have a small, positive effect. However, by definition, a placebo is a substance lacking direct physiological effect. The effect depends upon belief itself, rather than upon the truth of the belief. So effectiveness cannot be a completely reliable way to test the truth of a belief, even if we discover a way to transform beliefs into methods.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A particular method might be effective in helping people to achieve a particular goal. What does it mean to say that a belief is effective?

I would say that the effectiveness of a belief is related to the question: When you use the belief to form expectations (e.g. about the future) do you get the right answer?

 

[jcrichton]

A particular method might be effective in helping people to achieve a particular goal. What does it mean to say that a belief is effective? If we can somehow transform beliefs into methods … then maybe we could try to test the effectiveness of a method, and use the results of the test to tell us something about the associated belief.

Placebos have a small, positive effect. However, by definition, a placebo is a substance lacking direct physiological effect. The effect depends upon belief itself, rather than upon the truth of the belief. So effectiveness cannot be a completely reliable way to test the truth of a belief, even if we discover a way to transform beliefs into methods.

Hi!

…I think this is a mute example, as the contingency is that test subjects are under the impression that they are in deed taking something that will enhance/hinder them, while the truth is that what is consumed/used is in actuality neutral/sterile which will not produce any effect> The study/results are based not upon the agent being used/consumed but upon the belief that the neutral agent has some intrinsic altering value.

…well… unless the subject of the test is the “belief” that what is consumed/used has a beneficial/detrimental impact on the test subjects.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

As to placebo effect, it is quite powerful.
With many disorders that involve subjective discomfort it is about 40% effective (anxiety/depression/ pain) to somewhere around 60% (for irritable bowel syndrome).
Many medications are considered to work if they have a 60% response rate; they are amazing if they hit 70%.

The consensus among authorities is probably the most reliable information to go on. That said there are huge gaps in our understanding of how things work. I’m sure there are procedures carried on today that in the future will be considered as useless and harmful as blood letting. It is best to keep an open mind.

“Delusion” is a medical term.
One does see it used as a synonym for “wrong” with a hint of insult, rooted in ridicule of the mentally ill.
It is inappropriate to apply the term to the consensus among authorities because delusion is defined as a firm fixed belief not in keeping with the beliefs of one’s society (aka “reality”). It is a symptom of an underlying psychiatric disorder. We surmise that there is something wrong with the person’s thinking process because what they are saying is so strange.
That said, it is possible to see things differently, to hold odd or incorrect understandings without being delusional.

 

[mikekle]

There are plenty of things today that people believe to be true/ effective that will eventually go the same route as bloodletting, but it generally takes a long time for things like this to be ‘debunked’ so to speak.

Just imagine 100 years from now, the the things they will be saying about all those crazy people in the early 2000s, how could they have ever taken stock in some of those things? the same way we talk today about some things 100 yrs in the past.

Similar to back when radium was thought to be totally safe and a good treatment for many ailments, of course we now know that was totally wrong, but it took awhile to get to that realization.

Plenty of other things of the past that people thought was great and effective, and the same thing will happen over and over again. Every generation thinks they have all the right answers, but that is never the case.

 

[jcrichton]

:twocents:

As to placebo effect, it is quite powerful.
With many disorders that involve subjective discomfort it is about 40% effective (anxiety/depression/ pain) to somewhere around 60% (for irritable bowel syndrome).
Many medications are considered to work if they have a 60% response rate; they are amazing if they hit 70%.

The consensus among authorities is probably the most reliable information to go on. That said there are huge gaps in our understanding of how things work. I’m sure there are procedures carried on today that in the future will be considered as useless and harmful as blood letting. It is best to keep an open mind.

“Delusion” is a medical term.
One does see it used as a synonym for “wrong” with a hint of insult, rooted in ridicule of the mentally ill.
It is inappropriate to apply the term to the consensus among authorities because delusion is defined as a firm fixed belief not in keeping with the beliefs of one’s society (aka “reality”). It is a symptom of an underlying psychiatric disorder. We surmise that there is something wrong with the person’s thinking process because what they are saying is so strange.
That said, it is possible to see things differently, to hold odd or incorrect understandings without being delusional.

Hi!

I fully concur!

…however, it is a delusion to think that one has the power to heal all with blood-letting or some other form of cure-all; remember that erudite that basically charged that all problems with broken/dislodged psyche was “mom” related/fault?

That’s a delusion!

Maran atha!

Angel