Is psychiatry an exact science

Post Reply New Topic

Is psychiatry an exact science? Aren´t many so-called mental disorders just made up?

It is somewhat of a soft science.

How scientific is the typical diagnosis of something like depression for example? There is a widespread belief that depression is chemical based, yet few, if any diagnoses are ever made this way. The psychiatrist just hears a bunch of subjective symptoms from a patient and diagnosis it on that alone.

No, it is not an exact science (neither is medicine, BTW).

Last time I checked, only physics and chemistry can reasonably be considered exact sciences.

However, a major scientific challenge specific to psychiatry is that the field often focuses on descriptive categories of behaviour rather than etiology (this applies to both the DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for autism, for instance).

This might make sense in a clinical setting, but it also makes it more difficult to carry out research on the causes of psychiatric conditions, as the diagnostic categories are less likely to "fit" the biological cause (if any) of a psychiatric disorder.

Different etiologies could manifest themselves as the same behaviour, which could seriously weaken the validity of a given diagnosis. An example is the inclusion of somewhat similar impulsive behaviour in the diagnostic categories of both ADHD and Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Psychiatry is NOT a science. It is humbug. Neurophysiology is a science, but far from a complete science.

The only treatments that work are neurologically based chemical treatments. We don't have minds, we have brains which are gooey moist biological systems that are powered by ions going through semipermiable lipid based membranes.

ruveyn

this reminds me of a conversation i had with a colleague of mine who is a psychiatrist and neurologist. he said something that makes a lot of sense to me: he does not view his diagnoses as definite categories that his patients fit or can be correctly assigned to. he rather sees diagnoses as an indicator where to go with a therapy, as a tool to try and characterize the overall mental state and problems of a patient in order to then address them.

until now there is no such thing as a simple blood test for a disorder like depression or schizophrenia that would allow a definite yes or no because the biological mechanisms underlying those disorders are not at all understood yet, there is a high variation between patients and even if you identify some specific risk genes or changes in neurotransmitter x concentration in brain areal y that just gives you a tiny aspect that could or could not play a role in the whole story. so psychiatrists are only looking for psychological symptoms, and since every person is different every patient is different, there are mile wide gray areas and if you're going to diagnose something like aspergers syndrome that might not even have any clinical features because its just a set of traits its getting even more complex.

psychiatric diagnoses so far are completely artificial categories, but they serve the purpose of being a valid and valuable guide for therapy. which also means, and thats again both my and my colleagues opinion, that they are only relevant for people who actually need help.

Got to agree with your humbug assesment of the entire mental health field. Its more of a black art that a science. Psychiatrists are legalized pill pushers. Having met quite a few of the genre employed by state mental institutions will safely say most of the them belong on the inside as patients or clients or whatever the PC crowd call the inmates nowadays.

no medicine is an excact science. Hell, even science isnt an exact thing. It all changes as new things are learned and discovered

Well glad somebody mentioned science here. The dogmas of the Religion of Evolutionism attempt to tell us the theory of interspeciation (sic?)..where frogs turn into elephants over billions of years etc..which outside of space aliens is the only straw they have to grasp..is now posing as science. Not sure how the young skulls of mush are taught nowadays..but back in the good old days we were taught the pillar of science was the Scientific Method..of which the major component was "Repeatability." Unless these jokers have a few billion years to invest in an experiment to prove their theories..how can they call it science? Thanks.

Psychiarty is an attempt to define the grey area of human behavior of what society deems "mental illness". Every human being is unique. The psychiatrists "practice" their so-called science because it's not possible to define the grey area.

Well the fossil record do not align itself with the false science in question. The fossil record reveals traumatic sudden Creation and Extinction. There is a total lack of "transitional forms" even among the invertebrates let alone among veterbrates. Now there are a few hoaxes around Like Lucy which somebody have to be real dumb to fall for that one.

Well the fossil record do not align itself with the false science in question. The fossil record reveals traumatic sudden Creation and Extinction. There is a total lack of "transitional forms" even among the invertebrates let alone among veterbrates. Now there are a few hoaxes around Like Lucy. Hope nobody falls for that one. Clear hodgepodge of human and ape bones found far apart in different strata. Smart fellow at the link below who answers a lot of questions.

http://www.reasons.org

Sorry for the double posting. Since I have a form of learning disability I cant figger out how to delete the extra copy. I was trying to edit the first one when things went haywire. UFO's have been active in this quadrant ya know? Do you know why the Universe was created?