Coyne and Michael Sharpe on Twitter

I find the article linked to has confused arguments, glosses over things, and probably misses the point of science, evidence based medicine, etc., at least in this one article. I have not read other articles in the series, so maybe things are clarified elsewhere.

Many anti-psychiatry arguments are well founded, just as many have a poor basis in reason or evidence. Each has to be considered on its merits. There is no one interpretation of anti-psychiatry, just as there is no one interpretation of psychiatry.

I find the glossing over of psychosomatic medicine, which I currently consider blatant pseudoscience, is particularly bad. There was, once, a good basis for psychosomatic investigation, but its been lost along the way. This dates back to the 1860s, when the question was asked, as a question to be examined, what is the connection between mind and disease? Most of what followed was nonscientific theories, though I am sure some have to tried to take a scientific approach to it. To date this remains a largely nonscientific field. Treating it as scientific is the very definition of pseudoscience.

Can scientific questions be asked within the broad rubric of this field? This is kind of rhetorical, because the answer is yes. However, sadly, when I go looking for quality science I find bad research or unscientific research. I am sure good studies must be out there, I have just never found one. Meanwhile there is still no published evidence, and by evidence I mean scientific evidence, that psychosomatic disease is demonstrably a valid real world category. Similar problems occur elsewhere in psychiatry, even depression is not a stable diagnosis.

This is entirely different to saying that the disease/s referred to as depression (to continue my example) are not real, or do not matter, or do not harm people. Its about the failure of psychiatry to meet a high scientific standard, not about the need for highly scientific psychiatry. Its about a general failure to find mechanisms, or develop diagnostic tests. Its about where the future of psychiatry lies, as opposed to being mired in the failures of the past.

 

It's from the Wilshire et al. recovery paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

Coyne on twitter:
https://twitter.com/user/status/974695642802085888

https://twitter.com/user/status/974697753283612678

 

Thanks so much @Esther12 I've read that paper but there are so many brilliant papers about PACE i get muddled which one is which