Correct.

I watched some of these "expert" testimonies in court trials.

The testimonies are easy to abuse because they are specific and the lawyers don't know what questions to ask for verification.

Many of these "experts" are making good money by regularly appearing in court trials.

Wow, there is quite a wide spectrum of reviews for this book on Amazon. From love to truly hate. Since I am not an expert or academic in philosophy and philosophers and all their works, would this book be a decent choice for an amateur like myself?

I caught that line as well, Pecuniology, and thought "You've GOT to be kidding me! Really?!"

I'm sure Schiff and Pelosi will find a way to get these guys on stage... er ah... I mean in the witness stand.

There are many different psychological tests which when taken show tendencies and preferences.
Some random psychologist's opinion (free from testing our President) should never be allowed in any proceedings.

If you have not yet read Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, you might find it worth the time.

Your comment is more of an analogy than a metaphor. The Soul Snatchers do want to assimilate all of the non-infected.

Analysis is fast and easy. If you dont like the person (emotional reaction), then you fill out their name on the "instable" analysis sheet

Adam Schiff is just a lying bastard with no sense of reality at all.

Bizarre, isn't it? It's almost as if they were biased.

...and Adam Schiff, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Chuck Schumer, and...

Don't even bother calling me. I'll publish my diagnoses of my political enemies in Slate and discuss them on MSNBC.

Stand by.

My guess is: yes.

However, the 'expert' has to come from a field that is notorious for the inability of its members to replicate each others' research. If your PhD is in Engineering, Finance, or any other quantitative field, then your opinion is specifically unwanted.

Buried in the article above is this assertion:

"We don't believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount."

In other words, they're begging the question and treating the conclusion as a self-evident axiom.

Yes it could. Anti-Americanism knows no limits.

I'm guessing that the downvotes are for the first sentence, and not for the last sentence. At least, I hope so.

Contrarian psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, argued in "The Myth of Mental Illness" (1960, American Psychologist 15, 113-118) that, because we cannot observe minds directly, we cannot observe directly whether someone's mind is malfunctioning. We can observe only one's actions and infer the mental processes that cause them.

In cases of extreme autism, depression, or schizophrenia, it is easy to observe the effects of mental debilitation in the sufferers' inability to ensure their own survival and safety. However, Donald Trump does not exhibit any such symptoms. Quite the contrary, he appears to be preeminently able to feed, clothe, and house himself, along with countless relatives, employees, and vendors.

So, what do we observe? Textbook persuasion techniques, rhetorical feints and parries, exaggerations, blustering, grandstanding, vengeance, and a host of other negotiation tactics. Are these symptoms of mental illness? We'd have to consult with mental health professionals who did not have any philosophical, political, or religious axes to grind for a reasonably dispassionate diagnosis.

As it is, we have four psychiatrists, a clinical neuropsychologist, a neurologist, and an internist—who might or might not be fringe radicals of the psychological and psychiatric professions, which are dominated 9:1 by Democrats—who know Trump only from videos of his public statements. They have no idea what he is like in private, and they have absolutely no idea what his self-reported motives would be during a private counselling session. None of us does.

Can this process get any more unconstitutional, any more biased, and any more unAmerican?

I wonder if they have a lower rate for analyzing someone they have never met? I wonder if medical doctors could do the same for me, just call me and tell me what they think is ailing me for a small fee and tell me what to do about it?
If this attitude doesn't reflect badly on their entire profession it should at least convince anyone in their current care that they should be seeking advice elsewhere!

I think they ought to evaluate the mental stability of Nancy Pelosi instead

Agree.

In these times anyone can offer "expert" opinion about anybody and the press will gobble it up. Especially if they can use it against their favorite hated man, Trump.

I they impeach him, its tile for significant revolutionary actions

Correct.

It is one of the favorite methods of dictatorial regimes to use against their opponents because it cannot be proved or disproved.

Pelosi is using it against the president when she said the other day that she "was worried about Trump's mental health.

But of course she is not worried about Biden's idiocy or the entire DS establishment like Brennan who certainly comes across as someone mentally deranged or Schitty with his obversion about "evidence" that he has never presented.

One last chance to get rid of Trump. They should watch what they wish for, as it might just come back and bite them in the a$%

These jerks are not expert professionals. Diagnosing someone they have never spoken to, let alone tested is irresponsible, regardless of the person in question.

You mean, like the Hildabeast respected the law as Sec. of State, and how she has repeatedly respected the results of the 2016 election? You mean that kind of respect?

People with TDS want to testify as to Trump's mental stability? Really??