James Davies

What is striking about the construction of the DSM is that the procedures it followed often had very little to do with ‘science’ as most people understand the term, because, in short, the evidence was lacking. The problem here is obvious. When a group of scientists sit down to decide whether something is true, they consult the evidence. If the evidence points to a clear conclusion, then irrespective of whether an individual scientist likes it, the result has to be accepted. That is how science works. The evidence is king. But when you don’t have evidence to decide the issue for you, people’s opinions, beliefs, hopes and prejudices begin to intrude. In this instance, the scientist who desires a particular conclusion suddenly speaks up, argues loudly, and may, through sheer force of character, have their preferences accepted

Voting, in other words, is not a scientific activity.

This is because a vote is not a guarantee that the thing voted for is real or true or good or certain. Votes are at best informed guesses, and at worse punts in the dark, and so when anything is voted into existence, whether it be a new leader, a political policy, or indeed a new mental disorder, the likelihood that we have got it wrong is never far away.