> You make the mistake of thinking that I am attempting to defend psychology. If that were true, it would certainly be a mistake -- you aren't defending either

> You make the mistake of thinking that I am attempting to defend psychology. If that were true, it would certainly be a mistake -- you aren't defending either psychology or the reality of mental illnesses or their diagnoses. > You mentioned cancer. Indeed I did. > Is cancer real, or "virtual"? Since it's largely understood and is something on which different observers can be forced into agreement, since it has an explanation, not just a description, since it can be treated using physically unambiguous methods, since it survives rigorous, double-blind, controlled trials, it's real. > How about the pain that a cancer patient feels? Is that real or "virtual"? Virtual, obviously, since a trained actor can persuade a skeptical audience that he's in pain, as was true during the now-famous Stanley Milgram experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram If it happens that you plan to assert the reality of pain, its objectivity, I strongly suggest that you read up on the topic before you do. In particular read how a battlefield hospital ran out of morphine, so they administered a saline solution and said it was morphine. This worked, and began the research into the Placebo response. Similar stories: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/01/02/in-the-magazine/health-in-the-magazine/placebo-power.html/2 http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/01/02/in-the-magazin... Conclusion? Pain is virtual. This is not to dismiss pain's seriousness, only to dismiss its objectivity -- the degree to which different observers can be forced into consensus on the meaning of evidence.