| How does the closing of big institutions improve the scientific rigor
of a psychiatric diagnosis? The misunderstanding is probably my fault -- the message was too
short. Let's establish the basics: There can't be any science if you
can't measure. Reproducibility (replication): theory and experiment
(prediction <-> measurement spiral) are corner stones that support
each other and build on the language of math. "the results" -- as the very first message I've posted on the topic
says -- are about the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. If we
can't have that (an ability to measure) there is nothing to discuss. On "150 inpatient beds" -- how many people are in jail instead? And
again, how does it relate to scientific foundations of psychiatry? Both "lye to the doctor" excuse and "bleeding peptic ulcer" are
addressed on the very same wiki-page where the quotes come from. "Your link mentions RD Laing in the lead. RD Laing is now thoroughly
discredited." Here's the only occurrence of the name in the
article: "while listening to one of R. D. Laing's lectures that Rosenhan
wondered if there was a way in which the reliability of psychiatric
diagnoses could be tested experimentally." Does "the lead" mean "an inspiration"? In what way precisely anything
about RD Laing changes the results of Rosenhan experiment? I can go on pointing out imprecise statements but it don't see the
point. What would be nice to see is even a single reference to an
experiment that shows that yes we can reliably diagnose psychiatric
illnesses and here's what changed in out assumptions -- where is the
paradigm shift? On 2008 experiment: the result: "The experts correctly diagnosed
two of the ten patients, misdiagnosed one patient, and incorrectly
identified two healthy patients as having mental health problems. If
you think that the result: psychiatric diagnoses are unreliable
is invalid due to the way the experiment was conducted (some
methodological issues) then do point them out.> doctors were not allowed to interact with patients. Diagnosing a mental illness is a serious business with long term
consequences. Have any of the "experts" refused to diagnose on the
account of insufficient information? -- I don't know. I'd like to be proven wrong and see psychiatry in the hard science camp. Have I mentioned that psychiatric diagnoses are unreliable ;) |