Reply To: Ethical and legal question about CSS and JS codes.

[__]

Yes, Psychoanalysis is just chocked full of theories (opinions)

There is a huge and critical difference between a “theory” and an “opinion.” Anyone (scientists included) can have an opinion, whereas (as @chrisburton pointed out) a theory has “research and evidence to sustain their idea.”

Psychologists and Psychiatrists rarely agree because what they do is relegated to personal bias, opinion, and who feels like they are being paid the most to skew the facts, as opposed to science

Much of the disagreement comes from the fact that most of the ideas are hard to test or prove. The mind is an unknown. It’s like trying to rewrite a device driver without access to the source code or hardware—with only the I/O and your past experience to guide your efforts. Further complicating this is the fact that the most useful I/O is not directly measurable: it must be reported on by the patient.

I would also disagree with your assumption that those psychiatrists we see in courtrooms, arguing for or against the fitness of a rich kid to stand trial, are really the “esteemed” experts in their field (or even that other psychiatrists see them that way).

Real science agrees that E=M/C²

Not really. In fact, “Real science” agrees the opposite: E=M/C² is an oversimplifciation of the theory which only holds true when the total momentum of mass and energy net zero. And then, of course, there is special relativity, where it is still unclear if it holds true at all in all circumstances.*

* (disclaimer: not an astrophysicist.)

Real science could not say in one case that drunk driving is the result of a deficient mind and in another, where wealth is involved, state that it is the result of being affluent.

This is like claiming it is impossible for a house to be painted white if owned by a poor man, but painted blue if owned by a rich man. While this is strictly true, if you’re talking about the same house (and assume it hasn’t been painted in the meantime), that fact does nothing to prove what color the house is.

How much money do you have so I can direct you to the right Psychoanalyst with the right answer for your needs?

You’re assuming that competence and salary go hand-in-hand. (You’re also assuming that all psychoanalysts are corrupt, but I think that’s your point.)

Now, I absolutely agree that psychology and psychiatry have their quacks, and that the justice system is horribly flawed as well. You can find examples of corruption in any field, even science. This is not to say that the concept of a psychological disorder is flawed, any more than the concept of justice is. But there are “good ones.” (I’ve even met “good” lawyers, if you can believe that.) : )

Astrology, OTOH, is demonstrably absurd: you don’t even need to argue about the mechanics of it. Just go back in time a few years. Astrology had centuries of accrued anecdotal “proof” of its validity, and then they had to admit that their star charts were wrong and changed the dates for everyone’s sign. If they were “right” before, they’d certainly be wrong now, or vice versa, would they not? : )