| > You're wrong on several accounts, but the easiest to pick out is: The DSM is psychiatry's bible, not psychology. Clinical psychologists rely on the authority of the DSM, as do psychiatrists. The DSM is the central authority in both fields. If you are still confused, read this: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/04/dsm.aspx Quote: "After a 14-year revision process and a lot of contentiousness, the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) debuts May 22. What changes will affect psychologists?" > They are two separate fields. They both depend on the authority of psychology, the study of the mind. Would you argue that particle physics isn't physics on the ground that it isn't cosmology? The APA recognizes 54 subfields within psychology. Will you now argue that each of them is a separate field? I ask because I've heard that one before -- I've heard it argued that, if any of them is scientific, then all of them are. But science doesn't work that way. > Here's the psychology English wikipedia page ... I'm very familiar with that page. In an article I once quoted its definition of psychology -- "the study of the mind, partly through the study of behavior". I compared that to Wikipedia's definition of neuroscience -- "the scientific study of the nervous system." Within hours of the appearance of my article, someone added "scientific" to the definition of psychology. If only science could be that simple. |