Arguing about Psychiatry: Natural Selection, Austinian Conservatism, and Finding Our Way to the Best

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Joseph Gough
{"title":"Arguing about Psychiatry: Natural Selection, Austinian Conservatism, and Finding Our Way to the Best","authors":"Joseph Gough","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2023.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"P rofessors Murphy and Lieberman have offered two generous and interesting commentaries on my article, each very insightful and helpful in its own way, and each offering an interesting alternative characterization of the subject matter of psychiatry. I found each extremely thought-provoking, hence this rather bloated response. I strongly disagree with each. In brief, I disagree with the ‘preliminaries’ of each commentary, struggle to see the tension between Hull’s view of science and my view of psychiatry, reject Lieberman’s appeal to the history of mind-like and mental-illness-like concepts, and finally, believe my position neither suffers from the instability of psychiatry, nor blocks the route to best practice, nor counsels despair. Metaphysical precision and conceptual evolution: response to Murphy","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":"45 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2023.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

P rofessors Murphy and Lieberman have offered two generous and interesting commentaries on my article, each very insightful and helpful in its own way, and each offering an interesting alternative characterization of the subject matter of psychiatry. I found each extremely thought-provoking, hence this rather bloated response. I strongly disagree with each. In brief, I disagree with the ‘preliminaries’ of each commentary, struggle to see the tension between Hull’s view of science and my view of psychiatry, reject Lieberman’s appeal to the history of mind-like and mental-illness-like concepts, and finally, believe my position neither suffers from the instability of psychiatry, nor blocks the route to best practice, nor counsels despair. Metaphysical precision and conceptual evolution: response to Murphy
关于精神病学的争论:自然选择、奥地利保守主义和寻找通往最佳之路
墨菲教授和利伯曼教授对我的文章发表了两篇慷慨而有趣的评论,每一篇都有自己独到的见解和帮助,每一篇都提供了对精神病学主题的有趣的另类描述。我发现每一个都非常发人深省,因此我给出了相当夸张的回复。我强烈反对这两种观点。简而言之,我不同意每一个评论的“初步”,努力看到赫尔的科学观和我的精神病学观之间的紧张关系,拒绝利伯曼对类似精神和精神疾病概念的历史的呼吁,最后,相信我的立场既不会受到精神病学不稳定的影响,也不会阻碍最佳实践的道路,也不会让人绝望。形而上学的精确与概念的演化:对墨菲的回应
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信