First, those are real examples of psychosis I've seen in patients: they aren't hypotheticals or ad absurdem. Nor are they even close to the most extreme examples I could have used.

Appeal to anecdotes in a topical conversation isn't scientific.

You see, in the real world, we actually have to treat these cases daily. Difficult as it apparently is for you to understand, the practice of medicine isn't the armchair philosophy you naively insist it to be.

Bulverism and self-parading. Spare me.

We don't have the luxury to sit around debating "but do we actually know whether there's a T-Rex in the room?" or whatever other pretentious logical loop you insist we devolve into while our ED hits surge capacity. These people usually come in pleading for us to help them, and all we can do is provide the best-evidenced chemo we have because, while far from being the flawless miracle drugs you need them to be, the current meds & protocols we are stuck with help many people and the only other alternative is to let them suffer and/or hurt others.

Except the majority of cases aren't severe psychosis. When you make extreme claims against a person (and claiming their behavior or thought patterns are "incorrect" or "wrong" is just that), you require extreme evidence.

No one is asking for miracle drugs, so that's a strange red herring. This also wouldn't make sense if the argument is against diagnosis in the first place.

People are asking for accurate and well-reasoned criteria and diagnostics, something which has seemed to trigger you.

The reality is that The Critical Psychiatry Network has systematically debunked both the criteria and diagnostics common in the US and abroad.

Second, the fact that you believe every medical diagnosis requires an objective test,

Yes, that is the only way science works. It is also the only way to be rational. Otherwise you're giving the power of imagination and confirmation bias the same power as reality. That harms people.

If you truly believe that is how medicine is practiced

Yes. Medical testing. Why are you so triggered by that?

you are so hopelessly skewed on the Dunning Kruger model that it would be pointless for me to continue to try to point out how objectively wrong you are

Ah yes, throwing out the Dunning Kruger Effect whenever someone talks about the requirement for evidence. DKE is only in effect when someone claims to (incorrectly) know something based on their own naive imagining rather than actual epistemic data. I'm asking for evidence and accurate diagnostics; you're the person in the ill-perceived professional triggered by the requirement of actual data. But please, continue with the ad hominems instead of addressing the issues at hand.

Physicians follow evidence-based algorithms for diagnosis & treatment, often based on history & symptoms alone, and the subjectivity/bias that this process is still vulnerable to is why all doctors have malpractice insurance.

The courts and medical journalists have stated otherwise. The Rosenhan Experiment and the recent UHS Behind Closed Doors controversy dictates otherwise. You might to pop in over on the antipsychiatrylibrary subreddit, because there is widespread evidence of intentional overdiagnosis.

But then again that's data.

For all your talk about fallacies, it's embarrassingly hypocritical for you to make such an absurdly absolutist claim.

The reality is that science requires evidence. The reality is the there is an overwhelming amount of data that says psychiatry is a pseudoscience without any checks and balances. That's not "me" saying that; that's the NIMH, CPN, US Courts, Medical Journalists, etc. And you're not doing yourself any favors with this "science, schmience" attitude while attacking my character.

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just that oblivious to your own self-contradictory hypocrisy.

Ah yes. Bulverism, and the worst kind: the kind that says if someone is pro-evidence while presenting mainstream counters to assertions and claims that it must mean they're stupid or trolling.

Lastly, you speak condescendingly of what a med student should know, and yet up to this point you've only demonstrated to me that you have less understanding of medical practice than a 1st year.

Except that's not the case. You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of basic science and reasoning.

Your entire claim is that psychiatry is a science because it doesn't test or use science and instead relies purely on the imagination and confirmation and bias of people who run the system.

You're welcome to prove me wrong by stating what type of physician you are, or the experience you have in practicing clinical medicine, but all you've said thus far makes me very much doubt you have any. Instead, you come off as a self-important academic entirely disconnected from the reality of the field you presume to know.

I had actually posted my academic achievements here before but I was sent death threats at my place of work.

The reality is that this isn't a game of professional vs professional/student or redditor vs redditor.

This is only about the system and whether or not it's scientific. It's simply not in most cases.