> 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), 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:
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.
Again, the NIMH argument from authority. I truly do not understand the laser focus on clinical psychology and the DSM, which, I agree, has some major issues. Clinical medicine was not always as science-backed as it is today, but the field evolved over time as our tools and methodological became more sophisticated. I would argue that the broad field of psychology is far closer to its infancy than medicine, as it only branched off from philosophy late in the 19th century, and over time (with better tools and increased interaction with neuroscience and biology) the field will evolve to be closer to what you want. It might have a different name at that point. I think one aspect of psychology that leaves it open to attacks is that it borders a whole bunch of other fields, because it comes from an inherently fuzzy place of human consciousness and behavior.
Despite that, it still doesn't make sense to discredit all other psychological research as non-science because you don't believe in clinical psychology. By the way, if you want to trade federal research organizations, the NSF funds psychologists and psychological research.
I just can't and won't see the value in denigrating an entire field because I disagree with a piece of it. It's counterproductive and only breeds animosity. If the argument goes "hey, there are some parts to this research methodology that I don't think are up to snuff, let's focus on improving it." It's a bit more effective than "The DSM is worthless, clinical psychology is worthless, therefore all psychology is not a science."
And hey, going back to my first comment, sorry I didn't know you were the blogger, but you didn't have to be snarky, obviously I wasn't accidentally mistaking a random website for an indictment from the head.
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), 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
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-dia...