you need to understand that DSM-V is the same intuition voted into existence by many doctors instead of one. The same BS at the end of the day. Who in their right mind would call a science a subject where we vote/unvote things into existence or deny their existence by voting process? Can you imagine the best in the world physicists voting in the beginning of 20th Century if Einstein theory of relativity is true or not? 90% of the vote would be that Einstein is wrong. However, nature and real science don't give a shit about democratic process. It's all about facts. And the facts, especially in pseudo-science like psychiatry - could be very, very damaging to the status quo.
But is it really different than when the IAU decided our solar system has now planet less? The DSM isn't - from what I can tell - deciding that observable phenomena doesn't exist, but changing its classification, and that's something not derivable from facts.
For me it's more of is Sun going around the Earth, or the Earth around the Sun types of questions. Something very basic. I.e. is there a sex addiction or not? Is homosexuality a "disease" or not? I mean you do have whole movements like anti-psychiatry movement that basically are in total opposition to everything that psychiatry claims.
I can go to a psychiatrist and persuade him/her that I have a bipolar disorder. Or that I'm schizophrenic, or depressive. And that's because there is no way for psychiatrists to know. You can talk all day long about all types of brain imaging tests that could reveal the diseases. But if that in fact was true then psychiatry would use the tools in the diagnostic process. If nothing else then at least to shut up guys like me who laugh at that "science".
Do you think that I can't go to 3 doctors and persuade each of them that I have a psychiatric condition and that they wouldn't give me a diagnosis?
Comments
you need to understand that DSM-V is the same intuition voted into existence by many doctors instead of one. The same BS at the end of the day. Who in their right mind would call a science a subject where we vote/unvote things into existence or deny their existence by voting process? Can you imagine the best in the world physicists voting in the beginning of 20th Century if Einstein theory of relativity is true or not? 90% of the vote would be that Einstein is wrong. However, nature and real science don't give a shit about democratic process. It's all about facts. And the facts, especially in pseudo-science like psychiatry - could be very, very damaging to the status quo.
But is it really different than when the IAU decided our solar system has now planet less? The DSM isn't - from what I can tell - deciding that observable phenomena doesn't exist, but changing its classification, and that's something not derivable from facts.
Another good example, 620 nm, is that red or orange light?
For me it's more of is Sun going around the Earth, or the Earth around the Sun types of questions. Something very basic. I.e. is there a sex addiction or not? Is homosexuality a "disease" or not? I mean you do have whole movements like anti-psychiatry movement that basically are in total opposition to everything that psychiatry claims.
I can go to a psychiatrist and persuade him/her that I have a bipolar disorder. Or that I'm schizophrenic, or depressive. And that's because there is no way for psychiatrists to know. You can talk all day long about all types of brain imaging tests that could reveal the diseases. But if that in fact was true then psychiatry would use the tools in the diagnostic process. If nothing else then at least to shut up guys like me who laugh at that "science".
Do you think that I can't go to 3 doctors and persuade each of them that I have a psychiatric condition and that they wouldn't give me a diagnosis?