I actually think /r/askscience is one of the best moderated subreddits, which is impressive given its size and traffic. The example you linked is incredibly frustrating to me. That blogger has a very specific mindset about a subset of problems in parts of the general field of psychology that he is hellbent on applying generally to the entire broad discipline.

I went to an engineering-heavy undergrad and I saw that disdain from engineers on "softer" sciences all the time. I did not major in psychology, and parts of the field do have some serious issues, but to paint with such a broad brush and be so sure of yourself in casting aspersions on fields you have no formal training in is really gross to encounter.

EDIT: Hell, I'll go a step further and say that as neuroscience continues to intersect and grow with psychology I would consider a greater portion of psychologists as scientists than engineers.

> That blogger has a very specific mindset about a subset of problems in parts of the general field of psychology that he is hellbent on applying generally to the entire broad discipline.

Which blogger would that be? Perhaps you're thinking of Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, who has taken exactly the same position I have, and for exactly the same reason:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

"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. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better." [emphasis added]

For the above reasons, the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be the basis of scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no scientific content.

> ... parts of the field do have some serious issues, but to paint with such a broad brush and be so sure of yourself in casting dispersions [sic] on fields you have no formal training in is really gross to encounter.

Fair enough. Let's see how your viewpoint stands up under scrutiny. Do you think astrology is a science? No? But you don't have a degree in astrology -- doesn't that disqualify you from having an opinion on this subject? My point is that, in science, authority counts for nothing, only evidence matters. To put this another way, in science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

Also, the expression "casting dispersions" isn't quite what you had in mind (s/dispersions/aspersions).

And finally, Allen Frances, editor of DSM-IV, has recently written a book that makes the same points I do (http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalizati...).

If NIMH director Insel, or Allen Frances, tried to post to r/askscience, they would get the same treatment I got -- scientific censorship.

More here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science

As for aspersions/dispersions, I tend to miss a lot of autocorrects on my phone these days when I believe I've typed a word correctly, so I came back to fix it and saw your response, which I'll take a closer look at after work.

My major bugaboo is that I think the field of psychology is broader than the DSM, I don't argue with its failings, just that there is more to the entire field of psychology.

> My major bugaboo is that I think the field of psychology is broader than the DSM, I don't argue with its failings, just that there is more to the entire field of psychology.

Fair enough. Let's make a comparison with medicine. Medicine isn't just doctors and clinics, there are scientists working behind the scenes to produce new research-based cures that have been validated as well as explained in scientific studies. Doctors who go off the ranch in medicine are censured or arrested because medical research is a science and clinical practice is fully backed up by solid, empirical evidence.

Psychology has clinics and practitioners, but what takes place there is not remotely scientific and is sometimes astonishingly ignorant (http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology), and there are no cures, only questionable symptomatic treatments. The reason? Unlike medicine, psychology has no scientific component to prevent absolutely any practice in clinics.

My point? Many argue that psychology isn't just clinical psychology, that there are scientific psychologists working behind the scenes. My response is to ask why this fact, these psychological scientists, have had no effect on psychological clinical practice, as is true in medicine? The answer is obvious -- psychology describes, it cannot explain, and science requires empirical, testable explanations, for reasons given here:

http://arachnoid.com/building_science

But don't take my word for it -- NIMH chairman Thomas Insel has recently come to the same conclusion, recently ruling that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Again, the NIMH argument from authority. I truly do not understand the laser focus on clinical psychology and the DSM, which, I agree, has some major issues. Clinical medicine was not always as science-backed as it is today, but the field evolved over time as our tools and methodological became more sophisticated. I would argue that the broad field of psychology is far closer to its infancy than medicine, as it only branched off from philosophy late in the 19th century, and over time (with better tools and increased interaction with neuroscience and biology) the field will evolve to be closer to what you want. It might have a different name at that point. I think one aspect of psychology that leaves it open to attacks is that it borders a whole bunch of other fields, because it comes from an inherently fuzzy place of human consciousness and behavior.

Despite that, it still doesn't make sense to discredit all other psychological research as non-science because you don't believe in clinical psychology. By the way, if you want to trade federal research organizations, the NSF funds psychologists and psychological research.

I just can't and won't see the value in denigrating an entire field because I disagree with a piece of it. It's counterproductive and only breeds animosity. If the argument goes "hey, there are some parts to this research methodology that I don't think are up to snuff, let's focus on improving it." It's a bit more effective than "The DSM is worthless, clinical psychology is worthless, therefore all psychology is not a science."

And hey, going back to my first comment, sorry I didn't know you were the blogger, but you didn't have to be snarky, obviously I wasn't accidentally mistaking a random website for an indictment from the head.

It is probably better to say sub-Reddit moderators, they are given a free hand.

(That this is not consistent with their jargon doesn't really matter, the moderators of /r/AskScience can't do anything about you starting /r/Asklutuspaboutpsychology, they don't have the ability to moderate "Reddit", the various levels of site administrators do that)

> It is probably better to say sub-Reddit moderators, they are given a free hand.

Yes, true, but what Reddit moderators do reflects on Reddit itself. But if I had the power to choose, I wouldn't change anything -- the risk of one sort of suppression of freedom of expression must be balanced against another.

I think the outcome should be decided by the public, and (as with the topic of this thread) the Streisand Effect will resolve these kinds of issues.

For me, the problem with r/askscience is that the moderator doesn't understand science. He thinks science has no formal definition, that philosophers haven't decided what is and is not science -- therefore psychologists can call what they do science. That's false, but it's just someone's opinion, unfortunately he's running a subReddit that influences how many people think about science.