2 ms·

You're idea that there is an objective consensus on what's harmful and what's not is simply ridiculously wrong. I didn't say for all things, but I did say broa

You're idea that there is an objective consensus on what's harmful and what's not is simply ridiculously wrong. I didn't say for all things, but I did say broad. And most importantly, the results of the studies have nothing to do with what people think is harmful or wrong, only what actually can be measured and reproduced. People argue over climate science too (and for the same reason as your counterexample). There's still broad consensus at the end of the day. Meanwhile, the psych "science" is inherently anchored to whatever the social norms of the day are. Medical science and biology can define a healthy body with much more certainty and detail than psychiatry can define a healthy set of thoughts.

DasIch 11y ago
We know very little about how the brain and the mind actually work. Nevertheless we need to somehow people who have problems with these things. It makes sense to try things that might not be fully supported by science as has been done successfully in medicine. Of course mistakes happen when you do that but it doesn't make sense to abandon psychiatry as worthless because of that.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Nobody suggested abandoning it, merely that as a "science", it's woefully deficient. I have no doubts that we'll begin figuring it out soon enough. In the meantime, I suggest treating all psychology with a few more grains of salt than usual, keeping in mind that the science is often based on opinion rather than fact. ..especially when a nontrivial amount of peer reviewed papers can't be reproduced.