[认识论立场的转变。亚历山大-米舍利希对心身医学的呼吁]。

IF 0.2 4区哲学 Q4 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

NTM Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-10 DOI:10.1007/s00048-021-00318-3

Steffen Dörre

{"title":"[认识论立场的转变。亚历山大-米舍利希对心身医学的呼吁]。","authors":"Steffen Dörre","doi":"10.1007/s00048-021-00318-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the shifts in Alexander Mitscherlich's epistemological position in the 1940s, 50s and 60s via his plea for psychosomatic medicine. These shifts illustrate the post-war controversy among psychiatrists, physicians, and psychotherapists about what constitutes valid and practically relevant knowledge. The subjectivity of patients is key to Mitscherlich's concept of disease. This informs his continuous criticism of the use of statistical methods to validate individual diagnoses and hypotheses. This paper shows that Mitscherlich's criticism of a science-based medical methodology is highly adaptable, even though, in spite of many theoretical changes and adaptations, the main thrust of his approach remains consistent.","PeriodicalId":43143,"journal":{"name":"NTM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8608775/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Shifts in Epistemological Position. Alexander Mitscherlich's Plea for Psychosomatic Medicine].\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Dörre\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00048-021-00318-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the shifts in Alexander Mitscherlich's epistemological position in the 1940s, 50s and 60s via his plea for psychosomatic medicine. These shifts illustrate the post-war controversy among psychiatrists, physicians, and psychotherapists about what constitutes valid and practically relevant knowledge. The subjectivity of patients is key to Mitscherlich's concept of disease. This informs his continuous criticism of the use of statistical methods to validate individual diagnoses and hypotheses. This paper shows that Mitscherlich's criticism of a science-based medical methodology is highly adaptable, even though, in spite of many theoretical changes and adaptations, the main thrust of his approach remains consistent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NTM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8608775/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NTM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00318-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NTM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00318-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过亚历山大-米舍利希对心身医学的呼吁，探讨了他在 20 世纪 40、50 和 60 年代认识论立场的转变。这些转变说明了战后精神科医生、内科医生和心理治疗师之间关于什么是有效和实用的知识的争论。病人的主观性是米舍利希疾病概念的关键。这为他不断批评使用统计方法来验证个人诊断和假设提供了依据。本文表明，米舍利希对以科学为基础的医学方法论的批评具有很强的适应性，尽管在理论上有许多变化和调整，但其方法的主旨仍然是一致的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

[Shifts in Epistemological Position. Alexander Mitscherlich's Plea for Psychosomatic Medicine].

This paper examines the shifts in Alexander Mitscherlich's epistemological position in the 1940s, 50s and 60s via his plea for psychosomatic medicine. These shifts illustrate the post-war controversy among psychiatrists, physicians, and psychotherapists about what constitutes valid and practically relevant knowledge. The subjectivity of patients is key to Mitscherlich's concept of disease. This informs his continuous criticism of the use of statistical methods to validate individual diagnoses and hypotheses. This paper shows that Mitscherlich's criticism of a science-based medical methodology is highly adaptable, even though, in spite of many theoretical changes and adaptations, the main thrust of his approach remains consistent.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

NTM HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： NTM ist die größte Zeitschrift für Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte im deutschen Sprachraum. Sie bietet ein internationales Forum für Forschungsbeiträge, Debatten und Rezensionen aus dem Gesamtgebiet der Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte in allen Epochen und unterschiedlichen Regionen. Wir veröffentlichen innovative Beiträge, die an neuere theoretische und methodische Ansätze und Debatten anknüpfen, neues empirisches Material erschließen oder neue Forschungsfelder eröffnen. Neben der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, der Technik und der Medizin sind auch Beiträge zur Geschichte der Geistes-, Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften willkommen. NTM erscheint vierteljährlich. Neben dem klassischen, individuellen Forschungsartikel und Buchrezensionen publiziert NTM als weitere Textgattungen das „Forum“, das „Fundstück“ sowie “Essay Reviews”: - Provokative oder auch kontroverse Beiträge stoßen im Forum Debatten und Fragen an, die unser Feld kommend prägen werden. - Das Fundstück erschließt vergessene Objekt-, Bild- oder Schriftquellen von hoher historischer Relevanz. - Essay Reviews bieten entlang von Literaturbesprechungen einen kritischen Überblick über ein entstehendes Forschungsfeld. - Außerdem erscheinen Themenhefte (4-6 Artikel) sowie Special Sections (3-4 Artikel), die ein neues Forschungsfeld abstecken bzw. dessen Potential exemplarisch aufzeigen. NTM wird seit 2018 von der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT) herausgegeben (www.gwmt.de). Zuvor war NTM das wissenschaftliche Organ der DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). Die Zeitschrift hat eine lange Tradition und wurde 1960 von Gerhard Harig und Alexander Mette in Leipzig gegründet. • Doppelt anonymes Begutachtungsverfahren • Mischung aus unterschiedlichen Textgattungen (Artikel, Fundstück, Forum, Essay Reviews, Rezensionen) • Publikationssprachen: Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch • Volltext-Zugriff fu¨r alle Institutionen des DEAL Konsortiums ab 2020. Weitere Informationen zu DEAL unter https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements/oaforgermany-de NTM is the largest and most comprehensive journal for history of science, technology, and medicine in the German-speaking world. It offers an international forum for research articles, debates and reviews in the entire field of history of science, technology, and medicine in all epochs and various regions. The journal focuses on innovative theoretical and methodological approaches and discussions which make new empirical material or areas of research accessible. Contributions to the history of science, technology, and medicine, but also to the history of the social sciences and the humanities are welcome. NTM appears four times a year. Aside from classic individual research articles and book reviews, NTM publishes as additional text genres the “Forum”, the “Lost & Found”, and also “Essay Reviews”: - In the Forum, provocative or controversial contributions encourage debates and questions, that are set to shape the future of our field. - Lost & Found aims at exploring forgotten objects and other sources of great historical relevance. - Essay Reviews provide a critical overview of emerging research fields along literature reviews. - Moreover, NTM publishes Special Issues (4 – 6 articles) as well as Special Sections (3-4 articles), are aiming at defining new research fields or demonstrating their potential. NTM has been published under the auspices of the „Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT)”, (www.gwmt.de) since 2008. Before, NTM used to be the scientific body of the DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). The journal has a long tradition and was founded in 1960 by Gerhard Harig and Alexander Mette in Leipzig. • Double-blind peer review process • Mixture of different text genres (articles, lost & found, forum, essay reviews, reviews) • Papers are accepted for publication in German, English, and French • Open access to the full-text version under country-specific conditions Bibliographie N.T.M. Zuerst erschienen 1960 / first published in 1960 Namensänderung ab 1.1.2008 / renamed in 2008 1 Volumen pro Jahr, 4 Hefte pro Volumen / 1 vol. per year, 4 issues per volume ca. 500 Seiten pro Volumen / 500 pages per volume Format: 15.5 x 23.5 cm ISSN 0036-6978 (print) ISSN 1420-9144 (electronic)