2 ms·

I actually think /r/askscience is one of the best moderated subreddits, which is impressive given its size and traffic. The example you linked is incredibly fru

• lutusp 13y ago
  > That blogger has a very specific mindset about a subset of problems in parts of the general field of psychology that he is hellbent on applying generally to the entire broad discipline. Which blogger would that be? Perhaps you're thinking of Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, who has taken exactly the same position I have, and for exactly the same reason: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better." [emphasis added] For the above reasons, the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be the basis of scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no scientific content. > ... parts of the field do have some serious issues, but to paint with such a broad brush and be so sure of yourself in casting dispersions [sic] on fields you have no formal training in is really gross to encounter. Fair enough. Let's see how your viewpoint stands up under scrutiny. Do you think astrology is a science? No? But you don't have a degree in astrology -- doesn't that disqualify you from having an opinion on this subject? My point is that, in science, authority counts for nothing, only evidence matters. To put this another way, in science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence. Also, the expression "casting dispersions" isn't quite what you had in mind (s/dispersions/aspersions). And finally, Allen Frances, editor of DSM-IV, has recently written a book that makes the same points I do (http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229257 http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalizati...). If NIMH director Insel, or Allen Frances, tried to post to r/askscience, they would get the same treatment I got -- scientific censorship. More here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science
  • cwal37 13y ago
    As for aspersions/dispersions, I tend to miss a lot of autocorrects on my phone these days when I believe I've typed a word correctly, so I came back to fix it and saw your response, which I'll take a closer look at after work. My major bugaboo is that I think the field of psychology is broader than the DSM, I don't argue with its failings, just that there is more to the entire field of psychology.
    • lutusp 13y ago
      > My major bugaboo is that I think the field of psychology is broader than the DSM, I don't argue with its failings, just that there is more to the entire field of psychology. Fair enough. Let's make a comparison with medicine. Medicine isn't just doctors and clinics, there are scientists working behind the scenes to produce new research-based cures that have been validated as well as explained in scientific studies. Doctors who go off the ranch in medicine are censured or arrested because medical research is a science and clinical practice is fully backed up by solid, empirical evidence. Psychology has clinics and practitioners, but what takes place there is not remotely scientific and is sometimes astonishingly ignorant (http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology), and there are no cures, only questionable symptomatic treatments. The reason? Unlike medicine, psychology has no scientific component to prevent absolutely any practice in clinics. My point? Many argue that psychology isn't just clinical psychology, that there are scientific psychologists working behind the scenes. My response is to ask why this fact, these psychological scientists, have had no effect on psychological clinical practice, as is true in medicine? The answer is obvious -- psychology describes, it cannot explain, and science requires empirical, testable explanations, for reasons given here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science But don't take my word for it -- NIMH chairman Thomas Insel has recently come to the same conclusion, recently ruling that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
      • cwal37 13y ago