> psychiatric models in the 20th century, centered on the notion of disease... ..mental health conditions are to a large extent, a social construct produced by lifestyles
Is the problem medicalization of psychiatry, or is it "sciensification?"
How much progres have we actually made in the last 100 years? Medicine, particularly "wellness" is difficult to map onto an experimental framework. Even theoretically testable, Popper-esque theories are hard to formulate. For psychology/psychiatry... pretty much impossible.
To the extent that treatment is ever actually science-based... "Science" means a pharmacalogical framework, a drug testing framework. You can substitute exercise, talk therapy or whatnot for drugs but... that approach is going to lead you to conclude "drugs."
IRL, practitioners are either entirely nonscientific or extremely narrow... or both. There isn't really a "model of the mind" that's both expansive and scientific. We're dealing with that middle ground of science, philosophy and practical need that tends not to produce knowledge.
Without being disparaging, how much actual knowledge has psychiatry gained over the last 100 years?
> how much actual knowledge has psychiatry gained over the last 100 years?
Some
Plus you are conflating psychiatry with theraputic approaches, so that muddies the water.
Overall there have been massive advances in pharmacology which have given us an arsenal of drugs
In some cases they can be very helpful.
However these have been massively over prescribed, especially in the USA
There is good empirical evidence that many cases of mental illness have roots in e.g. childhood abuse.
There have been a lot of empirical studies that show increased rates of mental illness in childhood abuse survivors, combat veterans and rape victims.
There is good empirical evidence that some theraputic approaches can improve outcomes for some people. There does not appear to be any one approach that works for everyone.
Many therapists believe in those cases where there is an identifiable cause it is better to keep drugs as a last resort and try to find a therapy that improves things.
Certain conditions e.g. schizophrenia, appear to only really respond to a pharmaceutical approach and even then, again, not for all cases.
> Even theoretically testable, Popper-esque theories are hard to formulate. For psychology/psychiatry... pretty much impossible.
There are models of the mind, of development, of response to trauma.
It is possible to test outcomes of therapies without needing a full "model of the mind"
Granted, much of the research is of dubious value but some overall trends appear to be solid. I've tried to base this answer on that
> To the extent that treatment is ever actually science-based... "Science" means a pharmacalogical framework, a drug testing framework. You can substitute exercise, talk therapy or whatnot for drugs but... that approach is going to lead you to conclude "drugs."
I don't think any of that paragraph is well founded
Is the problem medicalization of psychiatry, or is it "sciensification?"
How much progres have we actually made in the last 100 years? Medicine, particularly "wellness" is difficult to map onto an experimental framework. Even theoretically testable, Popper-esque theories are hard to formulate. For psychology/psychiatry... pretty much impossible.
To the extent that treatment is ever actually science-based... "Science" means a pharmacalogical framework, a drug testing framework. You can substitute exercise, talk therapy or whatnot for drugs but... that approach is going to lead you to conclude "drugs."
IRL, practitioners are either entirely nonscientific or extremely narrow... or both. There isn't really a "model of the mind" that's both expansive and scientific. We're dealing with that middle ground of science, philosophy and practical need that tends not to produce knowledge.
Without being disparaging, how much actual knowledge has psychiatry gained over the last 100 years?