Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Will, I will just add this sample set of equations where science.x = hard science and science.y = psychiatry (and probably other soft sciences):
science.x + theory = work for outcome
science.x + practice = consistency
science.y + theory = work for outcome
science.y + practice = work for outcome
Assume that in 'science.y + practice', practice is the prescription of medication. How often will a psychiatrist prescribe a medication only to have an unexpected (or possibly bad) outcome and then have to try something else... and then maybe something else until something "works"? This process is repeated with each new patient. In 'science.y + theory' some building blocks are created, but there is no certainty how each patient will react to new medications (this does not include the chemistry behind pharmaceuticals ('hard') and the biochemistry of the interaction ('soft').
Now let's look at 'science.x + practice'. Once 'science.x + theory' is performed and an outcome assessed, 'science.x + practice' can be repeated with limited change or failure. Bridges have been built more or less the same for millenia (beginning with simple aqueducts in Roman times I believe) and they always work pretty much the same. You don't make a bridge the same way just to have one spontaneously disintegrate. It doesn't happen. That's the 'hard' vs. 'soft' argument AND the anti-psych argument rolled into one.
|
I'm not a psychiatrist. Technically, I'm not even a psychologist (as I'm not licensed). What I do know is that solid and verified systems of diagnosis and treatment exist for each of these sciences.
What you seem to be assuming is that psychiatry is a guessing game. Well, from a perspective it is, but from that same perspective so are physics and biology, so I don't understand why you're isolating psychology and psychiatry.
Using your aqueduct argument (which is funny, because on a different forum I have a lively discussion going on about aqueducts right now...), what about building an aqueduct through mountains? What about building an aqueduct over a desert? What about building one that needs to go uphill? What about constructing an aqueduct that has to survive freezing temperatures in the winter? You see, science is about establishing systems, but it's also about accounting for the myriad of variables in the equation that exist in any applied science. Just as it's actually much more complex than one might think to build an aqueduct, it's more difficult than one might think to make an accurate diagnosis and then choose an effective treatment. One person might have had sexual abuse as a child just as one aqueduct may have to be built on a difficult environment. The difference between the two in their respective fields is academic. They are variables to be taken into account when using the verified scientific systems which are established and continually refined.
What I would suggest doing is asking questions instead of presuming that a science isn't viable, reliable, or unsystematic. I may only have my BA, but several TFPers are extremely knowledgeable in the area of psychology, including Sapiens.