Talk:Disease theory of alcoholism

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disease theory of alcoholism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719135346/http://www.bhrm.org/papers/Counselor2.pdf to http://www.bhrm.org/papers/Counselor2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Question begging
"Alcoholism is a disease with a known pathology and an established biomolecular signal transduction pathway[43] which culminates in ΔFosB overexpression within the D1-type medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens;[43][44][45] when this overexpression occurs, ΔFosB induces the addictive state.[43][44][45]”  It’s hard to tell if this is meant as a description of the “disease” or of its cause.  If this neuronal etiology, not of drunkenness but of “addiction," is now an established fact of science, then why include the many dissenting voices in the article as credible critiques? Moreover, the reasoning is circular and subjective. i.e., it refers to something inducing the very "addictive state” which it purports to define, defining “overexpression” as the point where addiction occurs while defining addiction itself as just such an “overexpression.” It might as well read: "Alcoholism is an addiction induced by addiction." Needles to say, such tautological "proofs” are endemic to the social sciences. Orthotox (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s hard to tell if this is meant as a description of the “disease” or of its cause. I believe is a reinforcing cycle: use -> expression -> use -> expression. This could perhaps be phrased better. then why include the many dissenting voices in the article as credible critiques? Most of this information is old and this article needs a log of cleanup. The opinions of some people/organizations have/had not caught up to the mainstream science. Needles to say, such tautological "proofs” are endemic to the social sciences. This particular portion is in the purview of molecular biology. Sizeofint (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Controlled" drinking - less than 7 drinks a day?!?
So if you don't completely keel over you're "controlled" drinking? 86.63.168.150 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)