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.

  • @doricub
    9•10 months ago

    I am not a doctor but did some neuroscience graduate studies and will try to provide a basic explanation.

    The biggest problem with our current understanding of mental illness is we cannot directly connect the cause of mental illnesses to the symptoms like we can in other illnesses of the body. We run into a problem due to the complexity of the brain. For example, Parkinson’s disease is generally caused by degradation of the substantia nigra. This causes problems with dopamine signalling leading to paralysis. However, there are psychiatric disorders, for example the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, which are defined by periods of paralysis that are not affected by the same medications used to treat Parkinson’s disease. To use Major Depressive Disorder as an example we have multiple classes of drugs that work on different chemical levels (serotonin and norepinephrine being the most common) and systems in the brain but don’t have a one size fits all treatment.

    The focus of the DSM is a diagnosis guide that focuses on standardization of symptomology and diagnosis. It has guides on best treatment practices but it is not the primary purpose of the DSM.