>> Wait -- that's not my idea.

> Yes, it is.

I provided the source for the fact that the DSM is being abandoned because of its unscientific basis, you snipped out my evidence in bad faith.

> That's certainly recognition of the defects of the DSM when applied to a role for which it is not intended, but its not an indictment of psychology.

If I took the pre-eminent physics textbook, one used in every physics classroom in the country, and if I proved that it was based on nonsense, would that indict physics itself? Yes, of course it would. The reason? Physics is a science, and all its branches are validated or falsified by the same corpus of central, defining theory, theories described in the field's textbooks.

If psychology were a science, the same rules would apply -- there would be a defining corpus of falsifiable theory, vulnerable to scientific disproof, and explained in the texts that students read and practitioners (i.e. civil engineers) rely on for guidance.

But this isn't true, there is no such theory, in fact psychologists don't even shape falsifiable theories. This places psychology beyond refutation or even definition.

>> Consider the example of Asperger Syndrome. It was thrown out over a year ago by the editors of DSM-5, described as an unscientific and meaningless term

> [citation needed]

DSM-IV has a listing for Asperger Syndrome (AS). DSM-5 does not. The reason is that the "scientists" responsible for DSM-5 held a secret vote and voted against including AS. If psychology were a science, those who voted would have done so in public and they would have provided their reasons in a scientific paper.

But AS was not included in DSM-IV through a scientific process, and AS was not removed from DSM-5 by way of a scientific process. Both decision were based on popularity votes.

Here are some comments about AS during the process that led to its removal, by one of those who voted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag...

Quote: "'Nobody has been able to show consistent differences between what clinicians diagnose as Asperger’s syndrome and what they diagnose as mild autistic disorder,' said Catherine Lord, director of the Autism and Communication Disorders Centers at the University of Michigan, one of 13 members of a group evaluating autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders for the manual ... 'Asperger’s means a lot of different things to different people,' Dr. Lord said. 'It’s confusing and not terribly useful.' ... 'It’s not an evidence-based term.'"

The above is as close as one can get to science in psychology -- people's opinions.

> Falsifiable psychological theories exist.

Name one. But first, find out what "falsifiable" means. In science, "falsifiable" doesn't mean "no longer popular with a voting committee", it means proven false with incontrovertible evidence, evidence the meaning of which all similarly equipped observers accept.

> In fact, in your own post you point to a psychological theory being empirically falsified ...

Asperger Syndrome was not falsified, it was abandoned without ever being evaluated scientifically. In the same way, it was earlier accepted into DSM-IV without ever being evaluated scientifically. We still have no idea whether it is, or is not, a distinct condition with a distinct biological cause. The reason is that we have no idea what causes either autism or AS.

Asperger Syndrome wasn't evaluated using scientific evidence -- there is none. It was accepted into DSM-IV by means of a vote. It was removed from DSM-5 by means of a (now-secret) vote.

This is why the NIMH has decided to abandon the DSM, and why the chairman of the NIMH describes psychiatry (psychology's clinical practice) as a pseudoscience:

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

I can anticipate your objection to someone describing psychiatry as a pseudoscience (something along the lines of "psychiatry isn't psychology") -- if someone described particle physics as a pseudoscience, that would indict all of physics, because physics is defined by a single system of interdependent theories. Falsify the theory, falsify the subfield. Falsify the subfield, falsify the field.

> The DSM 5 is not a mandate.

1. Your objection above is missing something -- there is no falsifiable definition of psychology, anywhere. The DSM happens to be a collection of symptoms and associated diagnoses, but it is as close to a definition of psychology as exists.

2. Nice -- abandon the vessel piecemeal, while holding onto the remaining debris. If psychology's defining text is found wanting, abandon it. If someone's pet theory is ridiculed, abandon it. But science doesn't work that way. In science, fields are defined by a central corpus of falsifiable theory. Physics has the Standard Model -- it if's falsified, so is physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Biology has evolution by natural selection. If it's falsified, so is biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Psychology is not defined by a scientific theory, and it is therefore not falsifiable. It is therefore not a scientific field.

> "The DSM" is not "psychology".

Let's avoid a few intermediate steps and take this to its logical conclusion -- nothing is psychology. By contrast, the Standard Model, and relativity theory, are certainly physics, defining it and guiding its activities. Evolution by natural selection is certainly biology, defining it and guiding its activities.

When the existence of a luminiferous ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experi...

-- it instantly falsified much of the physics of the day, and every physicist knew it. This threw physics into a turmoil until Einstein crafted a replacement (1905) --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

-- a testable, falsifiable theory that was in many ways better than its predecessor theory (able to define more and predict more). Had this not happened, had Einstein not produced a replacement theory, physics would have been abandoned. The reason? Physicists are thinking people, people who don't offer absurd rationalizations when their theories are falsified. People who wouldn't dream of calling an opinion a theory.