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.

  • Amicese@lemmy.mlOP
    12·
    2 years ago

    And what’s the issue with those characterisations

    Nothing. The problem is that anxiety disorders are subjectively given and do not have falsifiable phenomena.

    They are also very reductionist; anxiety is an important emotion and it is very rational to be anxious when dealing with uncertain issues (like getting food poisoning). Anxiety helps to motivate to take action.

    Given that the symptoms of intense anxiety or panic in themselves ought to have biological phenomenon behind them

    Ought to have is not the same as proven to have (through disproving a null hypothesis); and anxiety disorders are not based on scientific research; but instead assertions.

    if we’re going by a physicalist-realism perspective of the human mind and body?

    what’s physical-realism?