zlacker

>>lcaff+(OP)
While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false).

Of course, the DSM is very controversial, and many people could fill in the argument, but this article doesn't do it.

>>hyperp+I3
It also implies the decline of psychoanalysis was a bad thing, when it's basically pseudoscience.

>>unisha+l9
If you mean Freudian psychoanalysis, you're right. Freud was a quack. The word "pseudoscience" was literally coined just to describe him.

If you mean all psychotherapy is bullshit, you're wrong. There are bad therapists just like with everything else, but good psychotherapists have saved a lot of lives over the years.

And if, on the off chance, you think all therapy is bullshit despite never having had therapy yourself... well, nobody is that stupid, right?

>>mnemon+af
Any citations?

>>harry8+SH
Within the humanities there will probably always be a lot of people who love Freud because he lets them say subversive things about society.

But in the sciences he’s been debunked. Any Psych 101 book will tell you his methods are no longer used. Their most direct descendant, psychodynamics, is very different from its ancestor.

Within the sciences, check out Karl Popper’s work on falsifiability. Freud is his example of pseudoscience: it sounds smart, and it can explain lots of things in retrospect, but if you write down it’s predictions in advance they often don’t match outcomes. Practitioners don’t acknowledge this or try to correct it.