Circular Arguments

So the APA (American Psychiatric Association) bases their belief that they are a REAL science because of "Rigorous, published, peer reviewed research..." Well, let's look at that phrase. Rigorous means demanding strict adherence to a standard. Who do you think set the standard? Yuppers, other psychiatrists whose careers need the research. The next word is published. Big deal, you got it past an editorial board. Oops, forgot about that other phrase "peer reviewed." I take it the peers of a psychiatrist are other psychiatrists. Sorry, they all have a bias towards the efficacy of psychiatry, and this argument is a circle. "Our research proves psychiatry works, and our research is validated by other psychiatrists." There are UFOlogists out there who have "Rigorous (at least to the standards of other UFOlogists), published (Google UFOlogy, 110,000 pages, not counting the myriad books and magazine articles), peer reviewed (yup, by other UFOlogists). In fact, the APA'a statement could have come from ANY group (NMBLA, Republicans, Democrats, IEEE, hell, anybody!). I expected more from a group such as the APA, other than a knee jerk, poorly written rebuke to Tom Cruise. If they are that worried about an actor, they must be paranoid what objective scientists would do.