They are professional, praxeological or applied sciences, where ethical principles and proper, professional practice are more relevant. Errors may have life and death implications. Therefore, practitioners stay closer to the concrete and the empirical, to minimize mistakes and optimize safe practice, protect themselves from litigation as well as their own malpractice and most importantly prevent illness and promote health.

our Litiginous society has "evolved" with Big Pharma producing a plethora of "alternative facts" backed by profit and legal penalties.

A version of the truth is reported on every medicinal package in the fine print listing disclaimers which include a form of magical thinking that if we are aware of how the medicines are bad, then they can be good.

this helps nobody but big pharma, and it ensures that the psychiatric field is entangled with best practices that are not at all good.

What is your definition of speculation in neuroscience? Can you give an example of what you are asking? Thank you-

Yeah, I think it needs a more technical explanation than a rhetorical/figurative one (i.e., "divorce'? - for me I am confused, is it between clinical research and theory; OR betwen Neurology and Psychiatry?; OR both in both disciplines?).

Interesting question

My own investigations, done partly through my own practice, is that the drugs are dangerous and their effects are not appreciated.

The very notion that the processes indicated above represent the location of genuine science needs to be reconsidered. It represents a professional position in relationship to a number of selected phenomena. That position leads to other positions of which intrusive treatments are often the result. At no point is there appreciation or understanding of the phenomena achieved.

They are actually the same areas and a unified model is the best answer. Based on biologial models and medications, I would say Psychiatry is becoming closer to Neurology as never before.