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.

  • altair222@beehaw.org
    11·
    2 years ago

    Idk about the article itself but to say that there is no biological phenomenon behind mental disorders is to deny the experience of everyone who has anxiety disorder and goes through dissociative symptoms.

      • altair222@beehaw.org
        3·
        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.

          • altair222@beehaw.org
            3·
            2 years ago

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

              • altair222@beehaw.org
                3·
                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?