>> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).
> This is false.
Check your facts. Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it:
Quote: "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever."
Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.
> Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects ...
That is exactly, precisely how neuroscience differs from psychology. Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms, as the above quote demonstrates, and as any honest appraisal of modern psychology shows.
> OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology ...
Yes, I agree with this. Neuroscience won't replace psychology, for the same reason astronomy didn't replace astrology: stupid people who need to believe in things that have no empirical basis.
But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.
I've actually read substantial portions of the DSM-III, -IV, IV-TR, and -5. The facts are exactly as I stated them.
> Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it
None of that supports your claim about causes. Nor does it support your claim that psychiatry or psychology are somehow not science. What it does suggest is that pyschiatry is less well-developed than other fields of medicine, which is well understood.
> Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms
Repeating this doesn't make it true. Psychology in its current state doesn't have a lot of information on low-level mechanisms, to be sure, and that weakness is widely recognized; but to the extent that information is available on causes, it incorporates them. Neuroscience informs pscyhology by investigating low-level mechanisms, in much the same reason that physics informs chemistry.
> as the above quote demonstrates
The quote you are referencing doesn't mention "causes" at all, nor does it address "psychology".
What it does address, when taken in its full context (to which you provide the link) is the problem that comes when allowing the existing symptom based categories to limit research to develop a better understanding of psychiatric diagnosis to support better treatment.
> But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.
Neuroscience isn't a treatment.
And its been quite important to developing psychiatric treatments for some time, its not a future contributor.
> This is false.
Check your facts. Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
Quote: "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever."
Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.
> Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects ...
That is exactly, precisely how neuroscience differs from psychology. Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms, as the above quote demonstrates, and as any honest appraisal of modern psychology shows.
> OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology ...
Yes, I agree with this. Neuroscience won't replace psychology, for the same reason astronomy didn't replace astrology: stupid people who need to believe in things that have no empirical basis.
But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.