If science is defined as some kind of systematic study of observed experience applied to hypotheses or theories, and then confirmation or refutation of those hypotheses or theories, followed by new hypotheses or theories that are further tested and refined by new observations – if this is the core of any scientific inquiry, I think that no objective observer can attribute the history of DSM-III, IV, and 5 to anything that approximates this process.

None of the DSM editions had ever been scientific lmao.

“our understanding of the biology of mental disorders has been slow in coming.”

There’s no biology in mental disorders; none of them have objective phenomena and they are arbitrarily given and created.

  • AmiceseOP
    0•2 years ago

    there is no biological phenomenon behind mental disorders is to deny the experience of everyone who has anxiety disorder and goes through dissociative symptoms.

    This is a false equivalency; the experience of someone is not the same as a lack of scientific validity in mental disorders.

    As an example, if someone was traumatized through astrologists; their experience can be valid and accepted without accepting astrology as a valid science.

    • @[email protected]
      2•2 years ago

      But no one’s saying that people suffering from anxiety disorder happen to be going through those experiences through psychiatrists, that’s completely irrelevant. The physical experiences come alongside an Anxiety’s phenomenon, and so do dissociative experiences due to anxiety itself.

      • AmiceseOP
        0•2 years ago

        But no one’s saying that people suffering from anxiety disorder happen to be going through those experiences through psychiatrists,

        They are; that doesn’t make Anxiety Disorders scientific; and the lack of mention of such situation is independent of its possibility.

        that’s completely irrelevant.

        It is relevant.

        The physical experiences come alongside an Anxiety’s phenomenon, and so do dissociative experiences due to anxiety itself.

        I’m referring to Anxiety Disorder, not the Anxiety of emotion, don’t equivocate the two.

        • @[email protected]
          2•2 years ago

          How would you define anxiety of emotion, and differentiate it or disassociate it from anxiety disorder?

          • AmiceseOP
            0•2 years ago

            Anxiety, as an emotion, is a feeling of unease, such as worry or fear, that can be mild or severe. It is generated as a reaction to stress.

            Anxiety disorders are “mental disorders” characterized by symptoms of intense anxiety or panic.

            • @[email protected]
              2•2 years ago

              And what’s the issue with those characterisations? Given that the symptoms of intense anxiety or panic in themselves ought to have biological phenomenon behind them if we’re going by a physicalist-realism perspective of the human mind and body?

              • AmiceseOP
                -1•2 years ago

                And what’s the issue with those characterisations

                Nothing. The problem is that anxiety disorders are subjectively given and do not have falsifiable phenomena.

                They are also very reductionist; anxiety is an important emotion and it is very rational to be anxious when dealing with uncertain issues (like getting food poisoning). Anxiety helps to motivate to take action.

                Given that the symptoms of intense anxiety or panic in themselves ought to have biological phenomenon behind them

                Ought to have is not the same as proven to have (through disproving a null hypothesis); and anxiety disorders are not based on scientific research; but instead assertions.

                if we’re going by a physicalist-realism perspective of the human mind and body?

                what’s physical-realism?