> The NIMH has abandoned the DSM as a basis for psychological research (conducted by research psychologists), because it failed to incorporate the scientific ev

> The NIMH has abandoned the DSM as a basis for psychological research (conducted by research psychologists), because it failed to incorporate the scientific evidence collected since the last DSM. Absolutely false. There is no useful science that could have been incorporated into the DSM to save it, and had this been so, Insel and the other critics of DSM-5 surely would have mentioned it. None did. > Recovered memory therapy was debunked by psychologists who showed in laboratory experiments that false memories could be "recovered". Recovered memory therapy was debunked by courts of law, not in psychological laboratories (those mental health professionals who doubted its efficacy were obliged to testify in courts, not in conferences), and it is still offered by clinical psychologists to anyone foolish enough to want it. > That does NOT mean that these aren't real conditions that have a real physiological basis. Yes, but that is an opinion, not a scientific finding. Remember that recovered memories, assisted communication, homosexuality, Asperger Syndrome, and dozens of other conditions, were also "real conditions" until they fell out of fashion or failed to agree with changing public tastes. None of them was ever proven to be real, or proven to be false -- ever. They just evaporated over time. > And I hope you'll consider that psychological research and the practice of psychology are different things. Yes. However, medical research, and medical practice, are not "different things". The reason is that medical research produces results of immediate and practical use to clinicians. The reason for that, in turn, is that medical research is an empirical science, a science that unites the field, produces a common ground for experimenters and clinicians, a common ground that does not exist in psychology.