I don’t see the AMA voting to declare something that is a disease is no longer a disease. (Although maybe I’m wrong — alcoholism and addiction are now a disease.)
Different how?
Early accepted medical practices were often barbaric, and not effective.
When we learned more about the human body, we stopped doing those things.
Much can also be said about the many fields of science, and the giant shifts that were necessary as the fields matured.
That said, scientific endeavors revise themselves when they learn that they are wrong, as was the case with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.
The many fields of science and medicine went through periods of growth during which they’d be laughed off as “not scientific” or “not medicine” by today’s standards. The mind is a lot harder to measure. There are often answers in principle but not in practice. This gap doesn’t make the entire thing unscientific, but in need of more progress.
How would you classify drugs that are proven to work for a given issue, but for which we have a limited or non-existent understanding of the mechanism of effect? Are these not medicines?
Exactly. And scripture is notably not revised when it is found to be wrong. I ask, which worldview should you trust more based on this observation?
I felt that the article is written is a style typical of conspiratorial literature, i.e.: presenting lots and lots of evidence for a false or straw-man claim.
The true message of the article seems to be buried in the subtext. they mention the cost of therapy (to the individual and to society) and they mention churches too.
To me it reads like this: I don't want to pay for your expensive psychotherapy through my insurance. Go to church instead (where, depending on the church, we might also get a chance to fill your mind with our regressive version of christian values.)
Clearly the scientific one. I think we're in complete agreement here, and that's why I highlighted that part of the article. My point was that it seems laughable to raise issues with therapy while presenting church as an alternative.
The sentence you quoted was directed at the other commenter's seeming implication that homosexuality's removal from the DSM is somehow an indictment of the psychiatric discipline (maybe I'm misreading them, hoping I am).
There must be some logical fallacy named for this. I've often seen this critique in terms of pandemic policy. ("Why should you believe what you're saying, when you've changed your mind before...")
Is that a scientific judgement or a cultural one?
I don’t deny the effectiveness of therapy - I know of great successes personally and anecdotally and I understand self-reported well-being is improved broadly. And yet it’s not quite science or medicine. There is no real understanding of purely materialist mechanism of how it works.