"Still, [mental disorders] are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested."
Mental disorders are in fact based in science and are directly tested. In order for a mental disorder to be categorised and formalised in the first place, it must undergo decades of research, testing, and review. In order for a mental disorder to be classified as such, it requires extensive usage of the scientific method. If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.
"It does not matter if a person is trusted; everyone should be able to independently verify that Psychiatry is a science; but no. Apparently only Psychiatrys are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification."
"You derived your argument from a deduction of a definition forwarded by *one* Psychiatrist. It's important to collectivly get definitions of a Psychiatrist before making this type of deductive argument."
You accuse me of making claims I never even contemplated to make. I never said that "let's trust only the expert-psychiatrists", nor did I say that "look! this one person said it, therefore it must be true!". That definition I provided is agreed upon by most others in that field, and outside that field, for that matter. I merely gave that one particular quote because it was easy to locate, and well-worded. Even people outside that field can easily understand that is what psychiatry is. You are furthermore undermining the fact that the definition (which is very commonly agreed upon) shows that the definition you provided in the start of the article (before it was removed) is false, and shows your likely lack of understanding in this topic.
"That's not the definition I'm getting. At the fundamental definition, a mental disorder is a disorder of mentality; an opposition to an order of mentality."
"We must agree on the definition of a mental disorder before being able to determine if mental disorders can be scientific."
That is your own heterodox interpretation of a mental disorder. I gave you the scientific definition of a mental disorder, which was found with empirical investigation. If you are unwilling to agree with the commonly understood definition of this topic, and instead use your philosophical view, than we cannot reach an agreement.
"Ok. I'll admit that saying mental disorders are not based in reality is kinda dumb; disorders are a *disorder* of mentality."
"However, they aren't exactly science. What is a mental disorder a disorder *of*? We still know a small portion of the brain, so who's authority is it to state how the mentality is supposed to work?"
They are scientific as I have already shown you. A mental disorder is a cognitive phenomenon which actively impedes a person from doing common actions. While some mental disorders I disagree with in their contents, most are what could be understood as disorders; they are harmful to a person, to the degree in which they often require external assistance.
"Do Psychiatrists study epistemology and understand Science? If not, then it doesn't matter if they studied medicine; they must understand science for them to be scientists."
"This argument is derived from the deduction of definition of a psychiatrist. Using this logic, I can define capitalists as "innocent people that help" and deduce that capitalists are helpful people."
The quote in which I presented to you indicates that Psychiatrists (atleast in the USA, of course) must have a four-year education in a scientific topic to even get to the higher-stages of an education in psychiatry. This information can be found elsewhere. The rest of that paragrath is a misrepresentation of what psychiatrists do as a career, they are not "scientists" per se, but merely apply an existing field that relates to science. People who work in a medical field are not necessarily scientists, yet for them to get to education for such an occupation in the first place, they must study a topic that deeply relates to science.
The second paragrapth is unclear in what it is attempting to say, nor is your comparison to "defining capitalists" vaild. I was arguing that the way you portray psychiatrists was dishonest. You can critique psychiatry, and I am sure many of those critiques would be adressing real issues in that field, I myself am often critical of aspects within that field. However, it is something else to target the people who work in said field. Psychiatrists are not people who extract surplus value, steal from workers, coup governments, ect. They are people, almost always proletarians, who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them. You could argue that the care they give is ineffective, if not harmful, but they themselves likely do not know or understand your problems with the field they work in, and how psychiatry itself is being abused by the present economic and political order.
"This is because it goes against western dogma. The drug industry is dominant in the United States; and Psychiatry is the tool the drug industry uses to extract wealth. Unsurprisingly, they are going to oppose anti-psychiatry."
"This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum"
You are once again proving me correct when I argue that the Anti-psychiatry community contains Anti-scientific ideas which are similar to those seen with Christian fundamentalists and Climate Change-deniers. Firstly, I said that Anti-psychiatry is unpopular among the scientific community, particularly with people who occupy a medical-related field. You, however, claim that I am false because the "drug industry" does not support it. This can mean one of two things, you simply misunderstood what I said, or you are claiming that the drug industry in the USA is in control of the ideas of, and has subverted, scientists and medical specialists.
This is the exact same mentality of Climate Change-deniers; they will refuse to accept proven facts about ecological damage, pollution, ect. all because, as they claim, the scientists who did that research who secretly "shills" to an underground conspiracy of "globalists" who had paid them all off. I am not saying, necessarily, that your ideas are just as false and unproven as Climate Change-deniers or Christian extremists, I am merely stating that you are refusing to consider the views of people educated in this matter simply because you have a clear bias in favor of Anti-psychiatry, which is certainly not how one advances science.
Nor is this an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The reasons why the Anti-psychiatry community is misguided in their ideas is much more complex than simple support or lack thereof. It is simply a notable trend that many pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific movements often have little-or-no support from people who have an education in scientific topics. This trend can be seen with "quantum mysticism", Anti-vaccine movements, astrology, and so on. Of course, the reason why all of the ideas and movements I mentioned are false is much more complex than simply the fact that they are no support from the scientific community, yet, the fact the they have no support is still nonetheless indicative of something, is it not?
"Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to."
Stop attempting to trivialize your participation with these communites. You were on the Anti-psychiatry community for months if not years, you made a large amont of the posts about "scientism", among others, and you willingly defending the community up until you were banned. You clearly have a vested interest in spread Anti-psychiatry.
"Yeah, that's one thing [usage of psychiatry] I dislike about all the socialist countries."
How is helping people bad? Furthermore, the fact that Socialist states use this medical field should show you that it is not a "big-pharma" plot to drug the poor, and instead is a vaild field concerning mental health.