4 ms·
More seriously, I think you need to restrict your argument to a subset of medicine, otherwise your argument is actually just "there are other area(s) of medicin
by flashback2199 3y ago
More seriously, I think you need to restrict your argument to a subset of medicine, otherwise your argument is actually just "there are other area(s) of medicine that also exhibit the same issue" which is not really a counterpoint to my original comment but instead an addition to it.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoSo we can discount psychology as a whole but need to pick and choose medicine? Why don't we consider the various areas of psychology as well instead of just throwing out the whole book?
- flashback2199 3y agoI'm not sure, I just don't think that a textbook that can be used to diagnose everybody with a disease is very trustworthy. Kind of like how passing a law that can be used to arrest anybody is generally not a good idea, or something like that.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoWhich brings us back to my inital point - the ICD can be used to do the same thing, therefore medicine isn't very trustworthy.
- flashback2199 3y agoI would be curious to know what percentage of the diseases in the DSM vs the ICD are based on empirical tests. Questionnaires are not empirical.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI don't think either of us know that, but I makes sense to start asking increasingly hard to answer question while you're pushing the goalpost around.
- flashback2199 3y agoMy original comment in this thread was how anyone could be diagnosed with something in the DSM, and usage of subjective methods is a major way that can happen, so it seems the goalpost didn't move at all.