On to my next installment of the Disease Definition Rant. Sorry for the delay.
And, because I may not have made it clear last time-- the opinion I am expressing in this rant is that it makes no sense to try and classify anything as either "a disease" or "not a disease," because the word "disease" is essentially impossible to define.
So in the last installment of this rant, I analyzed a definition of "disease" that turned out to be saying nothing more than "a disease is a condition of a body part; it can be identified by signs and it has a cause." Which could include such things as hair color, skin color, or the length of your fingers, whether unusual or not.
Now let's move on to some more definitions.
dis·ease
Pronunciation: diz-'Ez
Function: noun
: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors : SICKNESS, ILLNESS called also morbus; —compare HEALTH 1 —dis·eased /-'Ezd/ adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
So according to this definition, a disease is an "impairment." Impairment" is the noun form of "impair," which is:
im·pair
tr.v. im·paired, im·pair·ing, im·pairs
To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality: an injury that impaired my hearing; a severe storm impairing communications.
The trouble with including "impairment" in the definition of "disease" is that it automatically makes it a matter of opinion whether something is a disease or not. Value and quality are matters of opinion; something that I feel has high value or quality may seem to have low value or quality to another person. Strength is another issue-- a condition that makes my hearing less strong is definitely an impairment to my hearing. But what of our previous examples, homosexuality and Asperger's Syndrome?
I would certainly not consider being gay an "impairment" to anything. It does not reduce any abilities, and does not cause harm to the body or mind. But there are plenty of fundamentalists who would consider it an impairment to morality, mental health and the natural order of things.
What the definition says, however, is "an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts." What does "impairment of the normal state" mean? Does it mean that the organism becomes less able to function in the normal way? If so, how do you define normal?
And that is the problem with this definition. There is no way to define normal.
Try this:
nor·mal
adj.
1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
3. Abbr. n or N Chemistry.
1. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
2. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
4. Mathematics.
1. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
2. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
5.
1. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
2. Free from mental illness; sane.
Okay, #1 has to resort to using the word "norm" and a bunch of its synonyms; and #2 has to resort to using the word "abnormalities." When you have to use variations on a word in its own definition, you know you've got a problem.
Ignoring the chemistry and math-related definitions, all that's left is one definition that uses the word "average" and one definition that uses the word "illness" (which is disease, which makes the definitions circular.)
You can't define normal as average. Suppose, for example, "a normal human behavior" is defined as "something most people do." Most Americans don't know all of the Bill of Rights. Thus, for an American to know all of the Bill of Rights is abnormal, and if you use "abnormal" in the definition of "disease," then an American who knows all of the Bill of Rights has a mental illness.
I'm getting dizzy now, I have to go lie down. I'll work more on this definition later.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Dissecting definitions
So... the Pentagon has decided homosexuality is a disorder.
I'm particularly interested in the meaning of the words "disorder" and "disease," for two reasons. For one thing, I am very friendly with the gay community, which frowns on using the word "disease" to describe being gay. Secondly and even more close to my heart, I am diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, which is officially considered a disorder or disease, although I strongly dislike using those words for it, since I see the condition as beneficial in many ways.
So, on to Dictionary.com, I say to myself.
Well, Dictionary.com lists several definitions. Let's start with the first.
dis·ease (d-zz)
n.
A pathological condition of a body part, an organ, or a system resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
Okay, let's dissect this definition. First: "A pathological condition." Look up pathological, and we get:
path·o·log·i·cal
adj.
1. Of or relating to pathology.
2. Relating to or caused by disease.
3. Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: a pathological liar.
Look up pathology, and we get
pa·thol·o·gy
n. pl. pa·thol·o·gies
1. The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
2. The anatomic or functional manifestations of a disease: the pathology of cancer.
3. A departure or deviation from a normal condition: “Neighborhoods plagued by a self-perpetuating pathology of joblessness, welfare dependency, crime” (Time).
So, since the definition of "pathology" includes "disease," using "pathological" in the definition of "disease" is circular and makes no sense, and so the first part of the definition is meaningless.
On to the second part: "of a body part, an organ, or a system."
Well, the difference between a gay person and a straight person, or between an Aspie and a non-Aspie, is only known to be in one part of the body: the brain. Your brain is where you experience your feelings of falling in love, with the same or the opposite sex, and your brain is where you experience any social difficulties, obsessive behaviors or savant gifts you may happen to have.
And since the brain is a part of the body, the definition still applies.
On to the second part: "resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress."
Well, neither Asperger's nor homosexuality is caused by infection of any kind (parasites or microorganisms), and the part of environmental factors in causing either of those conditions is disputed. If they are genetic, it's a matter of opinion whether or not the genetic factor causing them is a "defect."
But the phrase "such as" implies that those causes are not the only possible causes for a disease, and so all it's really saying is that diseases have causes. Which does not rule out either Asperger's or homosexuality, yet.
So on to the third part of the definition: "and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."
Both homosexuality and Asperger's are characterized by identifiable signs-- in the former case, sexual attraction to one's own sex; in the latter case, the long complicated set of traits outlined in the DSM-IV, which I will not quote here for the sake of my sanity.
Whether or not one considers those signs "symptoms" depends on whether one considers the condition a disease, but since the definition says "signs or symptoms," it doesn't matter if you consider them "symptoms" or not; the definition can still apply.
So what is this definition? Basically it says that a "disease" is a condition (that is, a way of being), and it's in some part of your body, and it has a cause, and it can be identified by signs.
Big useful definition. By that definition a freckle is a disease. By that definition your hair is diseased whether it's brown, blond or red. By that definition every race is a disease, and it doesn't fricking matter whether Asperger's or homosexuality is a disease because the word disease has no meaning.
Tomorrow, on to the other definitions, which are just as pointless. Watch for my diatribe on definitions of "disease" that use the word "abnormality," which is flat out IMPOSSIBLE to define. Watch me laugh at Dictionary.com's attempts to define "normal" and "abnormal." Watch and weep...
I'm particularly interested in the meaning of the words "disorder" and "disease," for two reasons. For one thing, I am very friendly with the gay community, which frowns on using the word "disease" to describe being gay. Secondly and even more close to my heart, I am diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, which is officially considered a disorder or disease, although I strongly dislike using those words for it, since I see the condition as beneficial in many ways.
So, on to Dictionary.com, I say to myself.
Well, Dictionary.com lists several definitions. Let's start with the first.
dis·ease (d-zz)
n.
A pathological condition of a body part, an organ, or a system resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
Okay, let's dissect this definition. First: "A pathological condition." Look up pathological, and we get:
path·o·log·i·cal
adj.
1. Of or relating to pathology.
2. Relating to or caused by disease.
3. Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: a pathological liar.
Look up pathology, and we get
pa·thol·o·gy
n. pl. pa·thol·o·gies
1. The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
2. The anatomic or functional manifestations of a disease: the pathology of cancer.
3. A departure or deviation from a normal condition: “Neighborhoods plagued by a self-perpetuating pathology of joblessness, welfare dependency, crime” (Time).
So, since the definition of "pathology" includes "disease," using "pathological" in the definition of "disease" is circular and makes no sense, and so the first part of the definition is meaningless.
On to the second part: "of a body part, an organ, or a system."
Well, the difference between a gay person and a straight person, or between an Aspie and a non-Aspie, is only known to be in one part of the body: the brain. Your brain is where you experience your feelings of falling in love, with the same or the opposite sex, and your brain is where you experience any social difficulties, obsessive behaviors or savant gifts you may happen to have.
And since the brain is a part of the body, the definition still applies.
On to the second part: "resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress."
Well, neither Asperger's nor homosexuality is caused by infection of any kind (parasites or microorganisms), and the part of environmental factors in causing either of those conditions is disputed. If they are genetic, it's a matter of opinion whether or not the genetic factor causing them is a "defect."
But the phrase "such as" implies that those causes are not the only possible causes for a disease, and so all it's really saying is that diseases have causes. Which does not rule out either Asperger's or homosexuality, yet.
So on to the third part of the definition: "and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."
Both homosexuality and Asperger's are characterized by identifiable signs-- in the former case, sexual attraction to one's own sex; in the latter case, the long complicated set of traits outlined in the DSM-IV, which I will not quote here for the sake of my sanity.
Whether or not one considers those signs "symptoms" depends on whether one considers the condition a disease, but since the definition says "signs or symptoms," it doesn't matter if you consider them "symptoms" or not; the definition can still apply.
So what is this definition? Basically it says that a "disease" is a condition (that is, a way of being), and it's in some part of your body, and it has a cause, and it can be identified by signs.
Big useful definition. By that definition a freckle is a disease. By that definition your hair is diseased whether it's brown, blond or red. By that definition every race is a disease, and it doesn't fricking matter whether Asperger's or homosexuality is a disease because the word disease has no meaning.
Tomorrow, on to the other definitions, which are just as pointless. Watch for my diatribe on definitions of "disease" that use the word "abnormality," which is flat out IMPOSSIBLE to define. Watch me laugh at Dictionary.com's attempts to define "normal" and "abnormal." Watch and weep...
Monday, June 19, 2006
Article called "Backs to the Future"... (ha ha)
An amazing article about a culture where people's visualization of time is opposite to that of the rest of the world.
It seems all human cultures try to imagine time in a spatial way, and most of them visualize the past as physically "behind" them and the future as physically "ahead" of them. In fact, this way of picturing time is so common it was viewed as a universal trait of humans.
But they've found a South American culture where the opposite is true. Not only does their language use words meaning "front" or "forward" when referring to the past, and words meaning "back" when referring to the future, but they also gesture behind them when talking about the future, and in front of them when talking about the past.
The theory is that the past can be known, so it makes sense to place it ahead of you, where you can see it, and to place the unknown future behind you where you can't see it.
Which I think makes just as much sense as other cultures' way of reasoning-- that as you move through space, you're also moving through time, and the places you've been in the past are behind you and the places you will be in the future are ahead of you.
It fascinates me when different cultures have completely different and yet equally valid ways of seeing something. I loved the story "Shakespeare in the Bush."
It seems all human cultures try to imagine time in a spatial way, and most of them visualize the past as physically "behind" them and the future as physically "ahead" of them. In fact, this way of picturing time is so common it was viewed as a universal trait of humans.
But they've found a South American culture where the opposite is true. Not only does their language use words meaning "front" or "forward" when referring to the past, and words meaning "back" when referring to the future, but they also gesture behind them when talking about the future, and in front of them when talking about the past.
The theory is that the past can be known, so it makes sense to place it ahead of you, where you can see it, and to place the unknown future behind you where you can't see it.
Which I think makes just as much sense as other cultures' way of reasoning-- that as you move through space, you're also moving through time, and the places you've been in the past are behind you and the places you will be in the future are ahead of you.
It fascinates me when different cultures have completely different and yet equally valid ways of seeing something. I loved the story "Shakespeare in the Bush."
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Updates to my site:
Added palindrome cartoons to my Art Page.
Added links to my page and John's page on ArtRemains.
Added an essay about the Sally-Anne Test to my Essay Page.
Hmmm... did I do anything else? I'll post again if I think of any more recent updates.
Magneto...?
So I had this dream where my husband and my mom and dad and I were on vacation in a hotel on an island, and then all of a sudden there were tsunamis crashing in on the island from both sides, and more and more of the island was being covered by water, and I ran and ran until I got to the middle of the island where Charles from X-Men took me up a mountain and told me that we had to stop Magneto from controlling the water, and then... I don't know what happened.
I remember wondering why Magneto was controlling water and not metal, and deciding that this must be because we're currently watching several animes where the villains control water as a weapon. (Seriously, why are there so many animes like that? We're watching Naruto, Bleach, and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, and villains use water to fight in all of them. And then today we watched an episode of Naruto filler where there was both a water-fighter and a magnet-fighter.)
So anyway, have a happy Father's Day and Autistic Pride Day, and stay away from anything metal and anything wet, just in case.
*goes to bed bewildered*
I remember wondering why Magneto was controlling water and not metal, and deciding that this must be because we're currently watching several animes where the villains control water as a weapon. (Seriously, why are there so many animes like that? We're watching Naruto, Bleach, and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, and villains use water to fight in all of them. And then today we watched an episode of Naruto filler where there was both a water-fighter and a magnet-fighter.)
So anyway, have a happy Father's Day and Autistic Pride Day, and stay away from anything metal and anything wet, just in case.
*goes to bed bewildered*
Sunday, June 04, 2006
jewelry...
Take a look at my eBay stuff. Wow. My hands are tired.
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZviasotaQQhtZ-1
Have spent most of today ebaying the jewelry that we inherited from my husband's aunt. There are a few other pieces of jewelry we got from her that aren't up for sale yet, because we think they're cubic zirconia but are not yet 100% sure they aren't diamonds... want to make certain before we sell them.
Am also trying to sell the tiara from our wedding... I listed it almost a week ago, it ends on Tuesday, and it has one watcher but no bids so far. (I wasn't really all that crazy about it in the first place, and I certainly can't see myself ever wearing it again... but I'm still not willing to sell it for any less than $150, since it cost $212 to begin with.)
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZviasotaQQhtZ-1
Have spent most of today ebaying the jewelry that we inherited from my husband's aunt. There are a few other pieces of jewelry we got from her that aren't up for sale yet, because we think they're cubic zirconia but are not yet 100% sure they aren't diamonds... want to make certain before we sell them.
Am also trying to sell the tiara from our wedding... I listed it almost a week ago, it ends on Tuesday, and it has one watcher but no bids so far. (I wasn't really all that crazy about it in the first place, and I certainly can't see myself ever wearing it again... but I'm still not willing to sell it for any less than $150, since it cost $212 to begin with.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)