[KerryJones]

The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.

Treatment's don't fix anything, they might lessen one issue and often give a host of other problems that are often more severe. I think more studying of iatrogenics is in order and more data about what "making it better" means -- as often the patient and doctor have different meanings. Again, because there's no physical symptom, you can't say "levels have returned to normal".

If you were feeling depressed but now you feel nothing, is that better?

[Kalium]

The DSM can perhaps be viewed as a field guide to systems we can see the outer manifestations of but have limited deep insight into.

[geofft]

> The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.

What, precisely, would provide scientific backing here, if a vote by professional scientists doesn't count? A vote by academics? A committee of academics, appointed by a prior generation? A team at Harvard, because Harvard is the oldest? A committee appointed by the government?

[Talanes]

I believe their problem was with the structure of the process, and not with the composition of the governing body.

[KerryJones]

As Talanes mentioned -- the problem is with the decision method not the governing body. Again, comparing to the medical industry, where doctors don't vote on the existence or not of a virus causing a problem.