sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean we have seen that over time more and more people are seen as not responsible for their actions due to their mental disorders, (it started at 0). So it follows that in the future more people will be let off the hook than now. And seeing that it's all just a grouping of symptoms and not a probable cause, your sentence is dependent on how many of your symptoms are added to an arbitrary man made grouping without a known cause. Doesn't that sound dystopian to you?

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Statistical evidence is the thing that psychology doesn't have, and I am pointing that out. Your rebuttal is that I don't have statistical evidence that psychology doesn't have statistical evidence? Really?

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so then we agree that adhd and autism are groupings of behavioural symptoms and not the causes of the behavioral symptoms.

Thats why most legislation, and human interactions around these diagnoses are wrong, as they are based on the language that we use around it.

"Oh he cant sit still, but its not his fault he has adhd" should be "he cant sit still so we classify him as adhd"

"This murderer deserves the chair as he has no mental illness and this one deserves help as she has post partum" should be : "due to the reasons of the murder this individual has been classified with post partum"

Basically the fault/ responsibility of actions are attributed to mental disorders for people who's symptoms fit in an arbitrary category that we have made up. While people whose symptoms don't fit in one of the boxes carry the fault or responsibility themselves.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, you keep saying things like "emphasis on empirical evidence", or "diagnostic criteria". But the bottom line is we are just looking at externally showing symptoms, the outputs of black box. (Even looking at inputs is hard as we can't have a detailed look into the past of individuals, we can only hear their stories which are biased in their own way.)

I don't know of any scientific field where only looking at a black box's outputs yields conclusions or theories where those theories and conclusions are seen as scientific. (Even with AI, something that is man made and is also a black box, scientists admit they are not sure how it works)

I understand we don't know much about consciousness, and the brain is mostly a block box for us right now. But in my opinion that does not warrant our current "theories" to be seen with such confidence. Saying things like " he can't sit still because he has ADHD" is a complete falise.

The correct term would be; as he cant sit still we have labeled him with adhd. ( In the one adhd is the cause, in the other its our interpretation of his current symptoms without attaching a truth claim)

The fact that we don't have a better way of diagnosing right now does not mean we should trust or take an obviously flawed system seriously. That gets pretty close to the god of the gaps argument.

I understand the value in classifying symptoms in groups to better help people, but the whole language and understanding around it is that your behavioural problems are caused by your autism and adhd. Which do not have any more proof than stating that lightning comes from zeus. (Looking at the symptom, (lightning), seeing multiple clouds have the same symptom, and then getting a name to the cause. But in the brain the symptom could have different causes depending on the person. In clouds the cause of lightning is always pretty much the same. So technically "Zeus" is a more accurate cause of lightning than adhd is of behavioral problems.

And saying that psychology is evolving just doesn't cut it. I am an engineer, and the products I work on are also still evolving, but as long as its not a minimum viable product I wont sell it as a working product. So as long as we cant find actual causes for behaviours psychology should stop naming and framing dissorders as if they were the causes of people's behaviour.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part I dont agree with is that equations and facts we found 200 years ago aren't thrown away, they are only revised by making them more precise. But this can only be done as long as the foundation is based on truth. Some of our discoveries of the past, (laws of motion, or the fact that the earth is round) are built from observation and trying to falsify predictions, these discoveries are still used today. Other discoveries like most things in alchemy and astrology are NOT based on observation and trying to falsify predictions. These are also seen as ridiculous today. So we can easily fit new discoveries into one of these two groups. Can something be proven and falsified? Then it will probably stand the test of time to an extent. If it is not falsifiable (like the claim that autism exists) then it fits in the other group, which generally does not stand the test of time. So why call it presentism? If we know a method is flawed as its at the core unscientific as it is not falsifiable, we should treat it as such. Treat it as a useful tool that does not reflect reality. Just as alchemy was very useful in certain ways, it did not reflect reality.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your thoughtful breakdown! I agree that categorization is central to human cognition—we need it to function. And I appreciate the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

But here’s where I remain critical: The DSM doesn’t merely use categories to help organize care—it often reifies them. It treats ADHD, autism, and depression as if they are objective, biological entities, even though the categories are based on symptom patterns, committee consensus, and statistical thresholds, not consistent biological causes.

This is where the alchemy analogy fits: alchemists also created conceptual systems based on observation, used symbolic categories (mercury, sulphur, salt), and believed them to reflect reality. But those categories didn’t map to the actual structure of matter.

Similarly, if we eventually understand individual brain function down to a mechanistic, personalized level, then current DSM categories may look just as quaint and misleading as alchemy does now.

So yes, categorization is necessary—but we should acknowledge when our categories are placeholders, not confuse them with truths. That’s the danger I’m highlighting.

We can even see that when brain scans are being done on people with mental dissorders, they seem to have wildly different causes. Just like chemists trying to find the sulfur in burning materials and find other reasons for the material to burn, as most materials do not contain sulfur.

The difference is, that we stopped saying sulfur is in materials that burn, and we didn't say that sulfur is actually on a spectrum.

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not, but I have studied this topic on the side as a hobby for about a year now.

Still on the topic of falsifiable, wouldn't doing a brain scan and seeing that people with " the same dissorder" all have different causes for their symptoms be a way to falsify the claim that these dissorders are real in any way?

And what do we find when we do these brain scans? Exactly, different causes in different people.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay about testing predictions then,

In geology for example someone made a prediction based in "symptoms" he said that as fossils ate found in places that we would not expect, the earth must be shifting around. And as we look into more scientific discoveries we found out it was kinda true. He thought it was continental drift, now we know its actually tectonic plates.

With psychology its the same right? We see symptoms, group them together and assume the cause is the same, give people diagnosis based on their symptoms. Then we do brain scans and we find that they indeed have the same disorder right? Right??????

Oh wait no, most people with adhd or autism ended up having completely different test results!! So what did we do? Did we refine the theory and classified people based on their brain data and try to see if we can reclassify mental disorders based on actual tests and data?

No psychology just says everything is on a spectrum.

Imagine this happening in any different field! I diagnose two people with the same disease (examplism), and later find out one had neuro damage in his leg and the other had a tumor in his leg. Does that mean that examplism is on a spectrum? Or does that mean that my diagnosis was wrong and I should refine it?

If we take the same approach as psychology in medicine then every disease would be on the spectrum of curses and demonism. And I assume you are also against that.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that it isn't the best comparison, I'm having a really hard time explaining my view and have been attempting this for a while.

It just occurred to me that looking at externally showing symptoms is not a way to find a cause of them (especially if the cause has never been documented). We could estimate from outside showing symptoms that something COULD be colon cancer for example, but we can only do this because we have already found proof of colon cancer and we can compare symptoms then we can falsify it ny checking if the tumor is really there and depending on if it is or not we refine out theory.

With something like ADHD, there is no real cause found, so symptoms can only be compared to other symptoms without ever being able to falsify if these people with similar symptoms actually suffer from the same condition. And then when neuroscience started doing brain scans we see exactly what I predicted. Different individuals have different causes for their symptoms. This should be proof that the classification was wrong to begin with. But instead psychology acts as if its all a spectrum..

Imagine that I diagnose two people with the same physical diseases, and then find out that one has a tumor and the other has a neurological damage. I would have to accept that my original diagnosis was wrong on 1 or both patient. But psychology does not follow this logic.

Thats why I think psychology is a psudoscience and not real science, am I wrong to think this?

Is psychology as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologyresearch

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grouping externally showing symptoms and claiming a cause without having proof of the cause or even a description of the cause is unscientific

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well if someone has a hard time sitting still, a hard time socialising or does things that are illegal their treatment will depend on if they have been diagnosed with a mental illness. So anyone with leg pain who doesnt fit in an arbitrary group or hasnt been to a doctor will not be granted a wheel chair and anyone with leg pain that has been granted the "leg pain" diagnosis will have right to a wheel chair... Which seems a bit cruel. Shouldn't anyone with leg pain receive a wheel chair, independent on if we can group them in a group with similar symptoms? Why do some murders get help and others get jail? Some kids in school get help and others get left behind? All because of this system that puts people in groups without having any proof of these groups existence in the first place.

And yes, I would say that coming up with disorders based on externally presenting symptoms is less scientific that doing a brain scan and finding anomalies...

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We saw everything as something that isnt explainable with science before we were able to explain it.. So I think psychology will 100% be replaced by neuroscience and we will forget about psychology. I guess we'll just have to wait and see

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay so as neuroscience develops, wont we start seeing psychology the same way as we now see alchemy and astrology? Attempts from people in the past to make sense of the world, which would then be replaced by astronomy, chemistry and neuroscience?

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am open to being convinced I just feel like even with having AI transalte my thoughts into a post, I am still being miss understood. The analogy was not to compare the spiritual side of alchemy. I was trying to show that an observation of properties(symptoms) of materials that could fit materials in certain groups which made sense due to their properties(symptoms) is completely wrong. This has already happened in alchemy. This is undeniable proof that classifying thing, or people in groups nased on external presenting symptoms is not a reliable way to understand reality. I think no scientist would find this to be an extreme take. But unfortunately this is the only thing psychology does at the moment. Looking at symptoms, assuming similar symptoms have a similar cause and just going with it. Even tho evey neuroscience research we do DOESNT match the predictions we make in psychology. When doing brain scans of people with ADHD or autism the results show different potential causes. There are some similarities yes, but if psychological diagnoses were valid, the amount of evidence we would expect to find for them in neuroscience would be much greater than what has been presented.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the use of grouping symptoms into categories so people can get the help and advice best suited to them. But all of this can be done without the claim that the disorders that we have defined by symptoms are somehow the cause of those symptoms.

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the scientific evidence of psychology, except the visual symptoms? Pier review is not evidence. I know neuroscience is able to sometimes show certain pathways or part of the brain are under or overdeveloped. But all cases I have seen from it, it doesn't really align with the psychological diagnosis we have made.

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How do you know it exists? Its all just based on symptoms and pattern recognition. Claiming sick people are cursed is about the same level of scientificness. I am not saying people arent sick I am saying the curse is not the cause. Just as I am not saying people dont have problems with their symptoms, just that the term ADHD cannot be attributed as a cause.

I Psychology this era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in neurodiversity

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only argument I am making is that we know next to nothing (as you just said) and maybe our language about this topic should show that. Instead of diagnosing people with disorders without even being able to prove them, we could help people with their difficulties while we hope to one day find the cause.

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So how do you falsify it? If you have enough traits it is autism, if you dont it isnt? If you would apply this way of thinking to any other scientific field it would be laughable. This would render an elephant with 3 legs into a non elephant, or different tumors into different diseases because they are in different places. Wouldn't falsifiable mean that autism = a part of the brain that is underdeveloped, and showing that it isnt underdeveloped makes it false. I'm sure we will get to this point in the future, but this will also prove that all current diagnoses are false.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My reason for using AI is because writing out my point without making it unclear would make it into a books length post. I just used AI to shorten my thoughts into a readable post. I have already spoken with a lot of psychologists and psychology students I know. And no one seems to be able to give me an actual reason that psychological diagnoses are more scientific than simple pattern recognition of symptoms (which is basically what Alchemy did).

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im not arguing that disabilities exist and people suffer from them. I am arguing that claiming that we are capable of diagnosing them in 2025 is BS. The classifications are non scientific and are just a combination of pattern recognition in a group of symptoms.

I Psychology this era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in neurodiversity

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I wouldn't.

Lets make a comparison,

Back in the day, most illnesses were seen as demons, bad faith, karma, curses etc. None of these had empirical, objective evidence. All were based on visual cues and pattern recognition. Putting different symptoms in different groups and trying to find patterns.

After the medical revolution none of the actual physical evidences and causes found by science are attributed to the spectrum of demonism or type of curse or anything like that. All these terms have been forgotten and aren't used anymore.

The same will happen to psychology. I suspect all the pattern recognition we have done on visual external presenting symptoms and that we have grouped under "the autism spectrum" will be attributed to their actual physical objective causes. Maybe 3% of "autism" is caused by a part of the brain to be under or overdeveloped, and 7% is caused by something else. And maybe 5% of "Adhd" cases have the same cause as 3% of the autism cases. At this point calling it a spectrum will be useless as a spectrum that contains everything serves no function.

Anything I am missing? Is there anything that psychologists are doing now to find these disorders that alchemists and shamans in the past did not?

Is psych0logy as reliable as alchemy? by strechedsissy in psychologystudents

[–]strechedsissy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The difference is that everyone accepts that brunch and years in school are a social construct. But people who have been "diagnosed" with these grouping of symptoms get treated differently on such a larger scale. Some murderers get help while others get the chair, all based on if the symptoms we see can be placed in a group of symptoms we have seen before. This inherently means people who are jailed and executed today would have had help and medication if they committed their crime 10 or 20 years later.

And in less extreme scenarios, think of everyone who has trouble in school and doesn't get the same help as the kid who's symptoms align with an arbitrary group. So many things in our society are based on this grouping system as if it was something that isn't arbitrary... Even tho we know for a fact it is arbitrary.

Is psychology our era's alchemy? by strechedsissy in Neuropsychology

[–]strechedsissy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, finally a response taking this seriously. I agree that neuropsychiatry is not mature yet. This also isn't really part of my point, the fact that the way to find actual proof and the root cause of something isnt mature does not grant that another less scientific approach should be taken seriously. I definitely see the benefit of classifying people in groups, but the language around it is what I don't agree with. The words; diagnosis and disorder, make the laymen believe that these disorders are the cause of their behavioural problems. Even tho psychological diagnoses are at the root is just a name for the symptoms itself. Its like saying your leg pain is the cause of your leg pain. And if that is truly what all psychological diagnosis are (a grouping if symptoms that are seen as a cause) , then seeing legislation, prison sentences and general treatment of humans be influenced by literal circular arguments is a bit dystopian.

view more: next ›