I made this point elsewhere, but the reason it's a legitimate argument is because medicine is experiential. You don't become a good physician by reading Robbins 40 times. You become a good physician by reading Robbins 10 times and seeing what Robbins talks about 100 times. This is the inherent problem with your argument and why no one with any more experience than you and a brain takes you seriously. It's not because you're stupid, it's just that you don't even have a frame of reference with which to make a cogent argument.
Don't worry, it'll come soon enough. But suppress your arrogance and consider that you perhaps have no idea what you're talking about.
The problem by claiming good company with "more than a few med students, physicians, and 'experts'" with psych specifically is that 1) the field has advanced tremendously in the last couple of decades (meaning many physicians who trained a while ago and since have done nothing in psych know very little about the field) and 2) the exact same biases you see in this thread exist among many, many physicians. Just yesterday, in fact, my team was rounding and the attending decided to **** on psych because he didn't like the recommendations made by the consulting physician. The fellow on the team leaned over, whispered that I was going into psych, and the look of foolhardiness on the attending's face was just fantastic.
Again, the issue is not that psych is a perfect field not worthy of critique. The issue is that all fields of medicine are equally open to these critiques, yet psych for some reason seems to be the epiphany of the misdeeds of medicine because it's "not real medicine," "doesn't treat real problems," and "isn't based on science." Those aren't things you've said directly, of course, but pretty much every knee-jerk critique of psych falls into one of those three categories - yours included.