>> Tell that to the NIMH, which has ruled against use of the DSM for the best of reasons -- the claim is false. > You can keep saying that, but its not going t

>> Tell that to the NIMH, which has ruled against use of the DSM for the best of reasons -- the claim is false. > You can keep saying that, but its not going to make it true ... Which part of this are you not getting? I'm not saying it, the NIMH is saying it. The NIMH has ruled that the DSM can no longer be used as the basis of scientific research proposals because it only lists symptoms, not causes. > ... psychology and psychiatry do address causes ... You need to locate some evidence for this claim. Psychiatry and psychology deal in symptoms, not root causes. Don't bother to tell me how wrong you think this is, just write directly to the director of the NIMH, whose recent ruling is based on this uncontroversial fact. In the 1950s, schizophrenia was blamed on refrigerator moms (among other things). Now it's thought to have roots in genetics, but no one knows for certain. All that is certain is that its root cause is unknown. I choose schizophrenia for this example because, among the many disorders listed in the DSM, it's one of the better-understood. But its actual cause is unknown, as is true for all the other disorders listed there. In his recent book "Book of Woe", psychoanalyst Gary Greenwood reports that melancholia was proposed for DSM-5 but was turned down because its cause really is known, and the committee members realized this would represent the single exception to the rule that none of the listed conditions include a cause, and this would undermine the editorial scheme. So they voted it out, leaving the new DSM in a pure state -- all symptoms, no causes. I ask that you think a bit more deeply about this. Why did the DSM committees vote disorders into and out of the text? Why didn't they instead use scientific results that prove an association between causes and symptoms? The answer is that no such results exist. > ... you keep repeating the same ignorant statements ... Nice argument. Do you have any idea how this makes psychiatry and psychology look? Are you familiar with the term argumentum ad hominem?