Is Psychiatry A Real Science?

it seems not

I do not see how you can not include biology and the related fields in the category of hard sciences. If they can genetically modify plants and mice, have a total and thorough understanding of transcription and translation of dna into proteins and countless other things, it is hard science.

Unless you put them under the umbrella of chemistry and physics which they do fit. Actually everything fits under the umbrella of physics.

In Core Biology in a community college in 1995 I was taught protein synthesis, aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, all kinds of very well understood cellular processes. I can only imagine what they are teaching in that class today. Hard science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After reading all the replies to this post (even my own), I have revised my position. My revision was not coerced by anyone, for I view every topic with an open mind. If the collective logic persuades me to change my position, so be it. I now conclude that psychiatry (and psychology) is a science (please scroll up to find the definition of science).

For illustration, I applied the psychological tenet of chronology (as it relates to remembrance) to a tv show that I like. The show is called The Voice (a singing competition on NBC). Last Monday, there were five contestants remaining. Each contestant sang twice. The chronological order of the first round was, of course, 1,2,3,4,5. Psychology (the study of human and animal behavior) says that, if all variables are equal, the advantage would be (from most to least): 5,1,4,2,3. The reason 5 has the most advantage is that people tend to remember what happens last the most. So, using the tenet, I expected the chronological order of the second round to be: 2,4,5,1,3. Well, it was not. It was : 1,3,2,5,4. I found a very high correlation between the amount of votes each contestant received, and their chronological order.

Now, I am NOT a psychologist, but it is my experience that this psychological tenet is valid.

I welcome feedback.

I love that this thread has remained so civil! I still stand behind my opinion psychiatry tries to mimic science but it is not a true science, unless you also want to include numerology as a science too. And the DSM is the farthest thing from a science book one can get. It is politically influenced and based entirely on opinions. That it has been revised so many times and even now can not be agreed on speaks volumes on that point. Sigmond Fraud often called the Father of Psychiatry practiced dream interpretations and was convinced everything was related to our relationship with our mother. I do believe one day our knowledge and technology will eventually qualify psychiatry as a true science. But until then we are all guinea pigs

But I do have a question for DocJohn I hope he addresses.

Would you agree it is more important to treat the symptoms of mental illness based on just the symptoms rather then based on the diagnosis which could be wrong and change often.

These diagnosis all seem related with each person simply having more traits of one then another and some having several more then others. What I mean is one can have traits from many different diagnostic illnesses. It can never be so neat and simple as to say, oh you are this or oh you are that. What we can say is you have these symptoms more then other symptoms.

I think too many people, professionals and consumers get too hung up on the diagnosis.

Just my 2 cents

As Doc John and others have mentioned, medicine is a combination of science and art. Doing medicine does NOT equate to doing science, but relying on science, much as engineers do. Doctor is a high professional technician of the body as engineer is of grand humanmade structures. Since these applied sciences are part not they are not wholly sciences, ie I don't consider them sciences, though they rely on some scientific techniques. They rarely if ever focus on the fundamental nature and relationships of things, and thus are not essentially science. And psychiatry is a branch of medicine, so all this applies to psychiatry in spades. Considering it would be difficult to objectively define any fundamental natures of the human mind, it only makes sense it's not essentially a science.

I don't think comparing it to numerology is quite fair.

Since we have to use definitions in order to communicate here is the definition of science again.

Wouldn't you have to call this article published in the British Journal of Psychiatry science? I don't see how it isn't hard science, it's hard core molecular biology. It doesn't answer all the questions, but any good study or experiment answers a couple of questions and creates a hundred more questions you then have to pursue. That is how hard science has always worked. As DocJohn has stated the scientific method is used all the time in observation and experiment in both psychiatry and psychology.

Bipolar disorder: leads from the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action of mood stabilisers

Cognitive Science is another very promising area of study that combines lots of disciplines. I would put it mostly in the camp of psychology since it studies the mind but it uses lots of disciplines in that study and is not narrowly focused on one theory.

Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Department of Psychology

We have gone way beyond Freud, Skinner, and Pavlov's dogs.

I suppose in a lose way one can argue this is a "soft" science. But it really lacks too much "knowing" and is plentiful in opinionated. The tests preformed on meds is conducted in a scientific way and can be easily repeated and understood. If the study and tests were done in a scientific way with enough participants we can actually see the effectiveness of meds compared to the placebo. For example, buspar has a hard time beating the placebo on most patients then any other med for anxiety, the tests and results are scientific. but enter psychiatry and it is still the preferred med for anxiety

The pharmaceutical branch of psychiatry is indeed very scientific! Unarguable there. Psychaiatry seems to do in every which way with the lastest wind of doctrine which currently happens to be cognitive "science". I'm sure Fraud considered dream interpretation a science too, just as my younger brother considers mastering video games a science and art. But those terms are used loosely.

I am not trying to or wanting to down play the importance of psychiatry, but it's not a a hard science by any definition IMHO. For every psychiatric article you can find that you like, or makes sense to you, there are others you won't agree with or won't make sense. Also I can not help to feel the influence of being politically correct as a strong influence. specially in the DSM.

Again I think once we start focusing on the symptoms and why they happen and how to treat the symptoms, rather then focusing on labels and diagnosis which are wrong just as often as right. For example, there is no scientific tests available to prove any of the diagnosis actually exist. All we know for sure is that the symptoms exist.

What makes a person bipolar? Mood swings? Really? Everyone has mood swings to some extent. Where do we draw the line, and who says and why? Is there really such a thing as borderline? What test is there? Other then quizzes online. I think we guess and are opinionated more then actually substantiate and all the journals and reports and essays merely relate more to religion or philosophy then to science.

Psychiatry has always been a fine line between medicine a actual science, and philosophy. I think numerology is a fair comparrison, as it also lacks scientific hard data to prove it's claim but not short of answers

Peace

I have to agree with you are far as how it is practiced in a clinical setting today. I have been very lucky in my interaction with psychology and psychiatry and the care I have received. It has always been patient centered fairly holistic and not focused and hung up on a label.

Labels, definitions, and descriptions are necessary in any field. It's just that it is us guini pigs getting labeled. I have always known I was a guini pig when it came to meds. 6 to 8 weeks clinical trials don't tell you much. They use buspar because they don't want to use benzo's even though it is useless.

Is Psychiatry a Science? | World of Psychology