But none of that justifies saying that psychiatry isn't evidence based. They just think the diagnostic criteria are poor across the board. And they're probably

But none of that justifies saying that psychiatry isn't evidence based. They just think the diagnostic criteria are poor across the board. And they're probably right. We're still in the stone age when it comes to mental diseases, and as long as we have weak disease models, updating and pushing out improved diagnostic criteria will be more laborious.[1] But neither science nor evidence-based medicine is synonymous with advanced; you can't say something isn't scientific or evidence-based simply because it's not sufficiently advanced. Both are processes, which by definition means they'll always fall short of what could be at any point in time--it takes time for new knowledge to travel. [1] The fields of medicine and psychiatry are replete with examples of where supposedly revolutionary models and procedures were adopted by overly credulous practitioners, causing much harm and some of the most memorable horrors of recent history. Without better disease models practitioners will be more skeptical of new evidence, as it's more difficult to judge the quality and applicability of the evidence. It doesn't mean they're anti-evidence. Now, maybe these fields, especially psychiatry, are too skeptical and intransigent, or too indecisive, or too confused. It would be more constructive to just say that, rather than coming out swinging with conclusions that don't follow, effectively committing the same sins they're accusing of others.