

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale? (2007) - dak1
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

======
pdonis
PhysicsForums had a thread on this article back around the time it was
published:

[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182229](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182229)

The thread contains a link to a paper published in a scientific journal by the
article's author (Michael Disney), which is considerably more strident than
the article is.

------
lutusp
A terrific article about cosmology, a field that contains a surprising number
of unanswered questions and parameters without explanation. A candid
cosmologist would say, as this article does in essence, "It's embarrassing
what we don't know about the universe."

Meanwhile psychiatry and psychology, which don't even shape theories to be
ridiculed and dismissed for lack of evidence, tell us in no uncertain terms
that we're sick in the head and need drugs and/or therapy.

[http://www.cdc.gov/features/mentalhealthsurveillance/](http://www.cdc.gov/features/mentalhealthsurveillance/)

Quote: "... published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a
mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one
mental illness during their lifetime ..."

To me, the fact that half of everyone is now, or at some point in the future
will be, diagnosed as mentally ill, calls into question the meaning of
"normal". But maybe that's just me. And maybe the existence of official
diagnoses like NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) is one of the problems.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder_not_otherw...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder_not_otherwise_specified)

Quote: "This diagnosis may be given when no other personality disorder defined
in the DSM fits the patient's symptoms."

Well. That's a relief. Certainly better than telling someone there's nothing
wrong with him and sending him home.

~~~
jahewson
Toothaches are also common, perhaps we should stop treating them because
they're just "normal"?

It's embarrassing what we don't know about psychology. The DSM is not a
theoretical framework, it's a diagnostic tool to match symtopms with known
disorders, and it's constantly evolving. As long as we don't know everything
about the mind or presume to know everything, there will be people who have
mental problems which cannot be neatly categorised. Of course it's important
to keep improving the categories and not have too many catch-all diagnoses
being made, but ultimately when the data doesn't fit the model the solution is
to improve the model, not dismiss the data.

~~~
lutusp
> Toothaches are also common, perhaps we should stop treating them because
> they're just "normal"?

Toothaches aren't metaphysical ailments as are mental illnesses, they're open
to objective diagnosis. Different dentists don't argue about which diagnosis
the toothache sufferer really needs.

> ... ultimately when the data doesn't fit the model the solution is to
> improve the model, not dismiss the data.

Well, it seems the NIMH disagrees. The NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM
may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, on the
ground that it has no scientific content:

[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-
m-h](http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h)

Make no mistake about it -- because of the controversial method by which DSM-5
was created, and its very questionable content, the NIMH and many other
agencies intend to dump the DSM and replace it with a more scientific
framework described here:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

No more "Not Otherwise Specified" diagnoses, it seems.

~~~
jahewson
The DSM exists to give labels to groups of symptoms, it's not a theoretical
framework and all the above problems are due to people mistaking it as such.

You seem to be conflating the DSM as it used by clinicians and the DSM as it
is used by researchers, its use by researchers is indeed dubious, but
clinicians need a lingua franca for making diagnoses - they're not academics.

If you want theories, there's always psychoanalysis :p

