> I know you hold anti psychology views, but some forms of talking therapy are evidence based ...

I said that talk therapy doesn't work. You say it's evidence-based. Both are true -- the evidence shows that talk therapy doesn't work.

> ... and are as effective as medication for some mental illnesses.

Yes, that's also true. Talk therapy doesn't work, and it's as effective as the available medications, which also don't work. Here's just one example:

"New Study: SSRI Antidepressants ‘Clinically Insignificant’ For Most People" http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/new-study-ssri-antidepressa...

On that basis, I think we're in agreement. Talk therapy is evidence based, and it is just as effective as many of the available medications.

> They are quick and achieve good rates of recovery ...

Yes, and in controlled studies, so does taking no action, sending the client home untreated, or the application of placebos -- all equally effective.

> I'd agree if you'd used the terms "counselling" and "counsellors".

It's well-established that counsellors, fortunetellers, bartenders, and psychologists have the same effectiveness rates in settings where one of the choices isn't unfairly stigmatized.

That is momentously bad science: X doesn't work due to the evidence, and to prove it, here's a paper on a different topic.

If you think talk therapy works, the burden of evidence is yours, not mine. The default scientific assumption under these circumstances is that there's no effect, and as it happens, there's no evidence to contradict this assumption, and plenty to support it.

I posted what I did because it's relatively new and unfamiliar to many of psychology's advocates. As to talk therapy, these findings are in some cases decades old, with no change in the outcome.

Agreed, I actually had some trouble with this sentence:

"Science — psychology in particular..."

Psychology, in itself, is not a science. This diminishes any of his further arguments and not being evidence based.

PS. Sorry was meant for parent comment.