@oralloy,
Oralloy wrote:I do not agree that psychology is a pseudoscience.
This goes to show how low Oralloy's bar is for "evidentiary science".
If "psychiatry" is a pure science (psychiatry is the big brother to psychology) what else in his opinion is a pure science?
Any Joe Schmo with an opinion on anything is a scientist to Oralloy.
How is mental soundness achieved?
Psychiatry has its methods, how effective are those methods?
Are there more effective methods that psychiatrists do not use?
And as with many things, cured people no longer need to pay for treatment. Cured people are bad for business. So there is there the motivation for many to keep people addicted to treatment?
How do we know that it is not a scam?
Endless drugs and counseling... suicide...
Is there a better way to fix mental problems?
A better approach to mental trauma?
Did Freud get it right?
The current method is to get a patient to recall the trauma.
Wouldn't reliving the trauma only intensify the pain associated with it?
Rather than magnifying trauma why not try and dispose of it?
But disposing of it might negate the necessity for treatment...
See how this works?
But suppressing or negating trauma can have deleterious manifestations. Worse than magnifying it?
Really?
How do we know that the psychiatric approach is the right one?
People just trust and assume it is.
