Why do people think Psychiatry and Psychology are not Sciences?

Sociology is a science.
No one is claiming English and History are.
That's some hardball strawmanning.

>Real science such as physics and biology adhere to laws of nature and make use of mathematical models that can be rigorously observed
Psychology does no such thing
Psychology is a diverse field, and most modern forms of Psychology support Psychiatry.
I find it odd how you don't say a thing about Psychiatry, which Psychology has a partnership study with.
I think your beliefs are outdated.

It lacks empirical evidence psychometrics and self reported, expert assigned valuations, or arbitrary placements on a qualitative spectrum are not based in physical measurement.

You can't "think" there is a fallacy.
You can POINT OUT a fallacy being committed.
And I didn't straw man because I didn't discount someone's views by pretending to know their views and speak for them.

Psychologists have been parodied for decades for pretending to known unknowns, based on "intuition" and stereotyping. They play pretend psychic.

Some prominent psychiatrists have come out of the woodwork admitting to serious issues not only in the DSM, but also in diagnostic practices. The psychiatrist that coined the term "narcissistic abuse" applied it to psychiatry right after he applied it to parents.
The National HEAT Taskforce has also jailed hundreds of Psychiatrists for faking medical paperwork in order to hold people against their will and demand public aid in their name.
Then there's the entire "political abuse of psychiatry" issue.

>Sociology is a science
It's literally people cherry picking historical happenings and current events to support their ideas. It's riddled with confirmation bias, lacks the ability to be tested, and is unfalsifiable. Only psychology undergrads think it's science
Social """""science""""" is not science
Again it lacks mathematical backing and basis in physical laws

Psychiatry is no different from psychology other than the practitioners having gone through medical school

Neither one is science

>It lacks empirical evidence psychometrics
The measurements are not quantitative, they're qualitative.
- Retarded Speech
- Impaired Judgement
- Delusions
- Self Harm
- Manic Behavior
- Inconsistency
These are not subjective nonsensical non-physical concepts.
They're reportable and diagnosable.
No different than any Medical Science.
In fact, the criteria in the DSM may be the most well thought advanced form of criteria labeling to date in any Science.

Next you'll be saying that doctors lie and are part of a conspiracy to sell drugs or abduct people and be mean to them because they're greedy bad people.

>In fact, the criteria in the DSM may be the most well thought advanced form of criteria labeling to date in any Science.

Funny how it changes based on political trends

You're mostly right until 'advanced as', which is obviously bait, but I'll bite.

Psychology is a necessary discipline but one which is very difficult to get right. The nature of their results being (mostly) derived from patient self-reporting means accuracy is not going to be of the same quality as in the natural sciences, but this doesn't preclude finding meaningful data, as evidenced by the existence of the field after all these years.

Also psychology tends to attract less talent than say, mathematics, so the average quality of research is going to be lower.

I'm not going to stick around, but I throw in a little question here for the people who are so certain that psychology is not a science

Do you believe epidemiology is a science?
Not unlike parts of psychology it also deals with unreliable data and flawed models and has to try to overcome these deficiencies with statistics.

>The Milgram Experiments
>The r/K Rat Experiments
Those are Sociology experiments that have been repeated. It's also falsifiable.
Social Science is Science of Qualitative not Quantitative.

Psychiatry is a both a Social Science and Physical Science. It's based on empirical Neurology but the diagnosis is based on Psychological reports.

If neither were a Science then:
1.) Wouldn't be Doctorate degrees for them
2.) They wouldn't involved in Government and Courtrooms
3.) They wouldn't involved in Science Academies
4.) People with multiple doctorates including them would have called out the lack of Science but they don't

And denying Psychiatry is akin to Scientology crying nonsense.
People are ill. If they didn't have diseases then they wouldn't be in hospitals.
Psychiatry is based on Neurology, Evolutionary Biology and Bio-Chemistry.

Those symptoms you listed are quantitative, there is nobody on the planet who doesn't suffer "impaired judgement" compared to AI Supreme Overlord.

>Science improves itself
>Psychiatry improves itself
>Therefor not a science

>Funny how it changes based on political trends
Rarely the case.
It was fair to suspect rare deviations that caused social issues and interpersonal issues could be due to brain difference and therefore neurological differences.
Homosexuality and Transgenderism were taken off because there was new data.

Not bait.
But your claim that the majority is based on patient self-reporting is untrue.
According to the World Health Organization most mental health patients report that they feel fine and don't think they're ill.
It's families and schools that discover the disorders; people with brain damage can't use their brain to tell they have brain damage.
It's when people stop doing what they're supposed to do or show deficits and weaknesses that proves the disease.
It's self evident.
It's scientific because not only do scientists practice it but it's one of the few sciences everyone practices because people report on others. These people need care and to have their lives helped. They can't integrate or function unless psychology and psychiatry are taken seriously as sciences.
These people aren't just "different"; they're diseased. They need medication and social placement.

>f neither were a Science then:
1.) Wouldn't be Doctorate degrees for them
2.) They wouldn't involved in Government and Courtrooms
3.) They wouldn't involved in Science Academies

You just described theology ~100 years ago which is what psychology is today, a religion operating under the guise of science except instead of looking to the Bible they look to the DSM which changes based on political trends

>Homosexuality and Transgenderism were taken off because there was new data
New data suggesting that they are not mental illnesses such as?

>epidemiology
Not a science.
Medicine may make use of Medical Science but Medicine itself it not a Science, nor is Epidemiology.
You can't call every thing disruptive a disease, nor can you pathologize everything people don't like.
Choices and behaviors are not diseases.
They may be symptoms of a disease, but "just happens to have a neurological chemical imbalance" is also not a disease; it's not a cause.

Then there are the patients that disagree with diagnosis. We we to believe billions of people are just wrong? There are hundreds of biases that can levied against people; how come these aren't ever looked at in the diagnostic process?
It's not in the DSM.

>You just described theology ~100 years ago which is what psychology is today,
Like other posters said; it's based on epidemiology, neurology, chemistry, etc.

>New data suggesting that they are not mental illnesses such as?
The earlier reports associated pathological behavioral patterns like pathological lying, emotional instability, irrational and harmful sexual behavioral mannerisms, lack of correct biological alignment, etc.
They learned more and found out these reports were incorrect.

so what you're saying is that you don't know what epidemiology is?

>epidemiology
I do know what it is.
It's a study, but not a scientific study.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Validity:_precision_and_bias

Experience can't cause disease.
That's not how disease is defined.

Also, Psychiatric epidemiology just isn't.
You can't XYZ a disease by ABC just because you want to.
There has to be evidence.

Epidemiology isn't science

>They learned more and found out these reports were incorrect
What a surprise, self reporting (which is the fundamental basis of psychology) has proven unreliable

From personal experience with psychiatrists I can tell you there is no science in it

I was wrongly accused of behaviors and my diagnosis changed a dozen times

I was told I had to be ill because I was called ill before

That's not science nor ever how science works you require evidence and proof

I was told I said things I didn't and was threatened to go along with the con for money purposes

Psychiatry and psychology are not science they're about projecting feelings and thoughts onto people then lying about it, to yourself and others, to keep your ego afloat

When asked for video interviews on all of their future clients [if the clients asked for it] 100% of psychiatrists refuse

They know they're lying and that's proof

>Epidemiology isn't science
^ Proof this is Veeky Forums

>What a surprise, self reporting (which is the fundamental basis of psychology) has proven unreliable
Wrong and I already corrected that strawman.
It's from external reports. Observors.

so, let me get this straight
in you distinguished between medicine and medical science
you surmised that epidemiology is either part of or similar to the first rather than the latter
and the wikipedia article of it did not only fail to convince you otherwise, but you're actually trying to use it to prove your point

i see

Which means the non quantifiable "measurements" are not empirical, they are self justifying anecdotal semantics which is not how the scientific method works.

>that image

So we should all just build our own buildings, instead of blindly trusting engineers who go through arcane training that nobody understands?

>you distinguished between medicine and medical science
Medicine extends beyond Medical Science.
This is common knowledge.

>you surmised that epidemiology is either part of or similar to the first rather than the latter
Nope. You're projecting.

>and the wikipedia article of it did not only fail to convince you otherwise, but you're actually trying to use it to prove your point
The wikipedia article states very clearly there are too many biases and reports for it be a science. Science must have objective measurements.

Epidemiology has no fundamental objective basis when it comes to most diseases, and uses non-scientific ways of "determining" causes via the false attribution bias.

1) There are Doctorate degrees in religion
2) Religion is heavily involved in politics
3) Science Academies have Magic Groups, too
4) A lot of people call out psyche as bullshit, its why they add the soft or social caveat and put them in their own buildings far away from the real sciences

Empirical means it can be seen.
Quantitative and Qualitative can both be seen.
We arbitrary made up measures, that's a fact of history.
See the Mathematics documentary "How Long Is A Piece Of String" for more info.

>it's based on epidemiology, neurology, chemistry, etc.
Psychology predates all of those, how can it be based in them?

So what if psychiatry had to reclassify gays and transfags as not having a disease? Physics had to increase funding to study fluid dynamics because it was ignored for being too feminine.

>There are Doctorate degrees in religion
No, there are Doctorate degrees in STUDYING religion.
*facepalm*
>Religion is heavily involved in politics
And....?
>Science Academies have Magic Groups, too
What insane shit are you on about? Mentally ill detected. Proof positive.
>A lot of people call out psyche as bullshit
Did you seriously just try to use argumentum ad populum? A fallacy?

Epidemiology is not science it's simply study, there is a difference

>It's from external reports
Which are riddled with confirmation bias because the entirety of psychology is composed of philosophical musings about why people behave the way they do
And when psychological hypotheses get proven true that is largely a result of self fulfilling prophecy from the patient

psychiatry is a branch of medicine, not psychology

>it's based on epidemiology, neurology, chemistry, etc.
>Psychology predates all of those, how can it be based in them?
The same way other Sciences connect to other Science over time and improve each field.

>Chemistry predates Atomic Physics, so it can't be based on it
^How Veeky Forums thinks.

Psychiatrists don't diagnose, they only prescribe medications.
90% of diagnosis in the United States are done by those with Masters in Social Work working as psychotherapists.
They give the diagnosis to the Psychiatrists and they prescribe the pills.
All the contact they have with patients is asking how the medicine makes them feel.

Empirical implies physical evidence based on direct consistent observation and physical evidence implies some quantifiable observable, not something vague semantic framework with numerous spectrums of interpretation based on individual training, skill, and experience.

>sanitary system is shit in the US
>therefore branch X of medicine is useless

malpractice is not uselesness

You were fine until you got to the quantifiable part.
It can be qualitative or quantitative.
Otherwise 99.9% of Science isn't Empirical.

Psychology has an enormous problem with replicability which, combined with its extreme politicization, makes for really bad science (see, decades of "muh stereotype threat" and it doesn't even fucking exist).

>malpractice is not uselesness
Yes it is. That's how malpractice is defined.
And if there are series of malpractice going on?
A person going though dozens of corrupt doctors?
And this is more widespread than legitimate practices?
Then it's useless.

If the number of patients is growing at an epidemic/pandemic rate, where is the medicine and science?

That's not the only problem.
You can't have dozens of foundational systems that contradict each other and call it a science.

Then there are the fallacies/biases directly attributed to psychology:
The Psychologists Fallacy
The Martha Mitchell Effect

If one is doing math badly, that does not invalidate math.

If one does psychiatry badly, that does not invalidate psychiatry

But psychiatry has no foundational proof.
That invalidate the argument and supposition.
The badly done versions of the ruse are just extras proving it a waste of time.

If one does math badly then there is no consequence beyond a bad grade or failure to validate your hypothesis

If one practices medicine badly it can cost lives

You can't practice something badly.
You either practice it or you don't.
If you don't do it correctly, then you're not doing it.

No on is doing it correctly? Where is the evidence of it's existence?

And that is why you should persecute malpractice,I'm not arguing that. Psychiatry is riddled with mumbo-jumbo pseudoscience, money milkers and so on, but, in itself, is not different from any branch of medicine (if done correctly.)

The problem is that psychiatry gets a free pass when every other field has to go under rigorous scrutiny, so of course dubious "practises" flourish since there is little or no regulation

It's true. I pretended to have ADHD to get those sweet meds and become like erdos. I just met with a nice idiot woman who wasn't a doctor, just a listen lady. I told her my fee fee's and she agreed that if I say I have ADHD, then I must have it. She rang the psychiatrist on the phone and told him to write me up for a fat prescripsh of the good stuff.

Divinity Schools give out doctorates too and they give them out for a lot of wacky stuff.

And... Politics and Unscientific Speculation are not as mutually exclusive as you implied.

Magic and Illusionist shows rely heavily of physics and MIT has had an Illusionists Club for a while.

I just pointed out that your claim that nobody with doctorates dislikes psychology is bullshit, then entire academic scene is set at separating the hard sciences from the soft ones and just googling psychology is not a science leads to multiple scientists with degrees like Alex Berezow or Hank Cambell who have written op eds denouncing psychology.

>You can't practice something badly

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

It's also nearly impossible to prove that dubious psychiatric practices have been carried out when the field lacks reproducibility and falsifiability

Strawman mockery.
No. Here are the facts:
- Millions of young kids = ADHD
- Millions of teens = Bipolar
- Millions of homeless = Bipolar/PTSD
- Millions of complainers = Borderline
- Millions of criminals =ASPD
- Millions of whistleblowers = All the Above
Do you see a pattern appearing?
It's tactical targeting to silence people's behaviors because they're not being submissive.

Heat Taskforce has locked up hundreds of doctors for medicare and medicaid fraud in the last year due to malpractice of psychiatry.

Social service agencies are demanding clients fake illnesses or "accept" referral-based diagnosis for services [social services gets grants and psychiatrists get medicare/medicaid and grants].

Then there are religious parents that push for diagnosis.
Same is true for schools.

Then there is the whole foster care fiasco.

No, real sciences develop actual physical metrics, I wouldn't doubt that to someone who thinks psychology is a science 99.9% of the things you think are a science probably are not empirical.

Qualitative specifically means measurable semantics and quantitative means objectively measurable, so are you saying you think you can base a science on either measurement or constructing definitions that can't even be measured?

Denialism isn't a counter-argument.
Do you have anything intellectual to offer?

That story is true user. Though I don't know why I wrote it in that ridiculous fashion.

Chemistry isn't based on Atomic Physics.

Nature is pretty much the best source there is

You can't have chemistry without atoms.

ok i lol'd

I dont trust any "law" of nature - whether it be physical or sociological- that isnt at least invariant under a generalized coordinate transformation.

Psychology has a long way to go before it's results are independent of the particulars of the data gathering and analyzing process.

My foster parents/affluent school: adhd
Then: Bipolar/Depression
Then desperate private social services and private attached psychiatric practice?
PTSD, Depression

They claimed I had borderline traits, narcissistic traits, self harmed, tried suicide, had poor judgement and no sense of self identity.

I all, they forced me on 15 meds, she hated me in school, scapegoated me in school, held me against my will, stigmatized me into submission and them institutionalized me and lied about what I said.

I have met hundreds of psychiatrists and therapists.

I have only met one honest psychiatrist.
The original accusers were just bullies, not doctors. They claimed they didn't need evidence, they just "knew" I was inferior and unstable. So they attacked me and when I asked for help, they lied and said I started it.
With the stigma, the cycle came again and again.

Now I'm a sociopath. I trust no one and care for no one.

*In all

Not she; *they
Sorry, I'm watching a show and sometimes I type what I hear!

Apparently you can since chemistry predates the the atomic model, the atom isn't even atomic, and much of chemistry owes its properties to subatomic phenomena.

No. Inaccurate chemistry predates the atomic model.
Inaccurate isn't scientific.

Chemistry is still inaccurate or they wouldn't need to keep doing experiments. The scientific method is based on the assumption of experimental inaccuracy and peer review.

>Why do people think
"We all have a tendency to think that the world
must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view
involves some effort of thought, and most people
would die sooner than think – in fact they do so."
– Bertrand Russell, "The ABC of Relativity" (1925)

Do you even know how revision works?
Original terms for non-science can become science when there is enough evidence to support a branch that is reasonable.
The other branches of alternative fundamentals die.

>The scientific method is based on the assumption of experimental inaccuracy and peer review.
Not even close. In Psychiatry for instance, which is a science, people are presumed to have a disease if they match all the necessary criteria.
True until proven otherwise.
That is science. It's pathology.
Pathology is the centerpoint of science.

Appeal to authority is meaningless.

Except the diseases in psychiatry are diagnosed based upon self reporting and what the psychiatrist believes to be going on in the mind of the patient

That doesn't pass for science and it damn near doesn't pass for medicine either

Again, the majority of cases, via the World Health Organization, are not self-report.
They're discovered by other persons observing the individuals.
Epidemiology and pathology are scientific.
If you deny Psychiatry then you deny Neurology and Pharmacology.

So now, not only do you not understand how empiricism relates to physical measurement, but you don't know what peer review even means?

The newest DSM has eliminated the necessity of a specific diagnosis by creating a bunch of overlapping spectrums of self reported criteria that can all be treated with similar drugs and you can only presume its a disease if the patient reports discomfort, someone perfectly comfortable having a bipolar anxious borderline personality isn't even diagnosed even if they display all the symptoms.

>If you deny Psychiatry then you deny Neurology and Pharmacology.

No because they are mutually exclusive from psychiatry

Incorrect.
To get paid by insurance, a specific diagnosis must be made by law.
DSM 5 has multitudes more specific diagnoses than the DSM, but includes spectrums.

Yet you agree that the drugs CAN treat disorders, while claiming the disorders don't exist.

You're inconsistent.

Is it accurate and scientific or is it not?

Neurology cannot claim brain disorders without Psychiatric.
Yet Neurology does claim brain disorders.
And uses Psychiatric terms.
Same is true for Pharmacology.

There are brain disorders that do not involve psychiatry such as Lew Body and Alzheimer's

Pharmacology is the study of drug interactions, meaning everything from antibiotics to chemotherapy, so again the vast majority of pharmacology does not involve psychiatry in any way

You failed hard on that one

>There are brain disorders that do not involve psychiatry such as Lew Body and Alzheimer's
Oh, well I guess that means because there are a few that don't fit means we throw everything out then!

>Pharmacology is the study
Wrong. It is the study drug interactions, which follows pathology.
If we accept pathology, we must accept epidemiology. If we accept epidemiology, then we must accept scientifically accurate psychiatric epidemiology.

They overlap, so you can make whatever diagnosis you want, I was talking about the inner workings of psychiatry, not insurance protocol and bylaw creating a specific necessity that doesn't exist within the framework of the "science".

I said the drugs are interchangeable in some cases because they act like random drugs or even placebos in random brain chemistries and they randomly alter behavior and make people less uncomfortable, they don't cure disorders because the same behavior is only a disorder if it makes the person uncomfortable, you are making stuff up that I didn't say or imply at all.

Neurology is not based on psychiatry

>Pharmacology is the branch of medicine and biology concerned with the study of drug action,[1] where a drug can be broadly defined as any man-made, natural, or endogenous (from within body) molecule which exerts a biochemical and/or physiological effect on the cell, tissue, organ, or organism (sometimes the word pharmacon is used as a term to encompass these endogenous and exogenous bioactive species). More specifically, it is the study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function. If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals.

You also don't have to accept everything that follows from a base proposition, to do so is to engage in the highest form of logical inconsistency

You fucked up pretty bad here

>wiki bias
>straw man argument
Not what I said.
I said they share language at times which is conclusive evidence that there is support from other fields.

You fucked up pretty bad with jumping the gun on the straw man arguments.

Who honestly makes straw man arguments these days anyway?

So we landed on Psychology being BS and Psychiatry being mostly a science, but an unrefined science.
Good enough for me.

we did?
good to know
someone should tell psychiatrists though
i suspect most of them still think psychiatry is a branch of medicine
i think they will be pleased to be upgraded to scientists

the psychology downgrade is a bit of a bummer, but we could compensate by elevating psychics and psychoanalysts from bs-artists to doctors and thus go full circle

Itt: iqfags and "evolutionary purpose"-fags btfo

There are tons of quantitative measures in psych research. It's not all qualitative and it's not all dsm based. Go look at a few journals like psych bulletin and review or journal of math psych. The willful ignorance on this board astounds me.

Psychiatry: make junkys out of prescription drugs.

Psychology: use methods that were designed by academics and catedratics.

Go do your homework somewere else you faggot.

Lazy piece of fuck.

The whole point of sociology is that it has to do with the society people interact with. Saying that the society hasn't changed since those tests were done is completely false. This has nothing to do with validity. It just means tests need to be redone and that's it's even more relevant to keep doing it then previously thought

>confirmed chemical imbalances
you are aware that the "chemical imbalance" theory of brain disorders has long been discredited right

>I was wrongly accused
>They know they're lying and that's proof
paranoid schizophrenic?

There really isn't a way to explain it, just look at psychology for yourself
what they do is observe things and then make claims with no basis in reality to get attention or promote political messages. It has been thousands of years since psychology first existed and yet nothing permanent or of value has come out of it. Math and science have create laws explaining the universe's behavior but psychologists are still making up new bullshit

to further on what i was trying to say: look at psychology, OP. There are hundreds of people contradicting eachother and making wildly different claims. In a true scientific field based off of fact this cannot happen

This is how irrational psychiatry students are.
This is actually how immature they are.
This is actually how they think and process information.
And this student's "rant"?
Given gleaming praise even though it's chalk full of cursing, narcissism, condescension, etc.

Psychiatry doesn't study brain disorders... it is a brain disorder.

No you moron.
See:
Here is what I was accused of:
ADD, Depression, Bipolar and PTSD.
When I tried reporting overdiagnosis, abuse, scapegoating and psychological abuse by the therapists, I was diagnosed with NPD and PPD.
When I tried to speak about these issues louder, I was called "psychotic" and "delusional" and was dictated to I had dishonest motivations and was mistaken or paranoid.

All without asking for proof.
Not subjective evidence, but proof.
And I have it.
The original accusers, whom admit they're stupid liars that never thought the consequences would get out of control... admit it freely that they lied.

Every professional since then hates it when I call their coworkers liars and idiots for pushing agendas without reviewing evidence, and instead admit to trying to "correct" [punish] me for my own good by lying on paperwork to push me into the "criticizers are insane" category.

I even have proof that a social service director tried to have me silenced so they could lie on records to obtain grant money; I recorded our conversation.

So, no. I'm not insane in the slightest.
And no, no amount of projection, confirmation bias, or gaslighting is going to work on me.
I've published 2 volumes on psychological abuse, gaslighting, fallacies, bias and circular reasoning.
Try again.

...