Shared publicly  - 
 
The DSM-5 has been finalised - killer analysis by Vaughan Bell
10
1
M Monica's profile photoTerry Walker's profile photoAngyl Bender's profile photoJason Goldman's profile photo
9 comments
 
"No, you should ask "Can science be applied to psychology?" and I would reply, yes, but much of what I see being applied in the field isn't science, it's speculation and a mockery of science." 

Finally dug out my diary and got the statement as I wrote it down back when I sat in on one of my mother's oral exams for her doctorate, 31 years ago. I meant to stick this as a comment on your earlier post, but it seems to fit well here.

http://stoneglasgow.blogspot.hk/2011/01/richard-feynman-on-cult-science.html
 
Wow, I totally missed out on the childhood bipolar trend.
 
"to help more accurately and consistently diagnose children with autism", because you stop being autistic when you turn 18.  *sigh*
 
I strongly agree with this post. There's really no science correlation for amen, but if there were, I'd say it. 
 
!nemA.  Reverse amen, as if reversing the damage caused in the name of that word.
 
+Terry Walker just because improved diagnosis for kids is a goal doesn't mean adults are ignored...
 
+Scott Hatch in response to your first comment, the mistake here is that psychology does not mean "human behavior" - psychology is the scientific study of behavior and the mind. Likewise, it would make no sense to ask "is biology science?" because it's a tautology.

Instead, we can ask, "is it possible to scientifically study behavior?" or "...the mind?" and the answer is "yes, if we're careful" - just as, for biology, we can ask if it's possible to scientifically study life. And the answer is the same: "yes, if we're careful." (which is itself a tautological response, as science by definition implies carefulness, particular careless scientists notwithstanding)

Psychology is simply a young field, Lots of wrong turns are made in a field's infancy and toddlerhood. The same has been true for biology, chemistry, physics, and so on.
 
These "diagnoses" serve to line the pockets of the drug companies, and the diagnostic criteria are so bizarre. PTSD caused by watching television? Seriously? What about PTSD caused by watching a violent video game? (And the slippery slope science behind that, what exactly went into that call? What studies did they use to prove that PTSD can even be triggered second hand? Studies on mirror neurons?) 

So many issues here. 
 
"To ask, "is psychology a science?" is to make "science" a prestige label when it is, in fact, a method. And it can be dangerous to give an entire field credibility in that manner as it can make pseudoscience look like more than it is. Simply look at a paper in any field and ask two questions: "Is this science-based?" If yes, it deserves attention. Then, "Have the authors used the method correctly so that it stands up to scrutiny?" "   -- Callum Hackett 
Add a comment...