检验关于模糊性的假设

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Nicholas Tilmes
{"title":"检验关于模糊性的假设","authors":"Nicholas Tilmes","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2022.0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I thank the commenters for their insightful remarks, from which I have learned much. In my article, I sought to explain psychiatric vagueness, which arises in borderline cases where there is no fact of the matter as to whether a diagnosis rightly can be said to apply.1 I argued “if psychiatric vagueness exists, then some of it is at least partially semantic” (Tilmes, 2022). A semantic account holds that vague utterances express different propositions since small gaps in how linguistic communities apply terms modify their referents, making their precise extension indeterminate.2 On my view, this best accommodates intuitions about the nature of conditions and explains historical changes in the application of psychiatric terms. A semantic account implies that we can sometimes settle diagnostic questions by attending to linguistic data and that some vagueness will remain so long as differences in language use do. I also argued that solely epistemic and ontic accounts—which attribute vagueness to ignorance and the world—come to implausible conclusions about psychiatric vagueness and fail to help us navigate it, respectively. It is worth clarifying my position here. First, I do not claim that all psychiatric vagueness is semantic, but only that some cases of it at least partially are. “This leaves open the possibility of vagueness having multiple sources” (Tilmes, 2022) and does not require abandoning all nonlinguistic considerations. Indeed, thinking that the borders of psychiatric conditions are affected by language need not entail rejecting concepts of etiology or kinds altogether, just as thinking that it is indeterminate when red turns to orange does not entail rejecting the notion that color is shaped by wavelengths of light. Second, I do not argue that diagnostic manuals or theories of psychiatric kinds necessarily reflect assumptions about vagueness, but that each account of vagueness lends itself more to certain approaches. For instance, if understanding psychiatric vagueness as a problem of language commits one to anti-realism, adopting a primarily semantic approach may give one reason to reject realist theories of psychiatry. Dan Stein contends that we should “side-step the Sorites paradox, and its notion that our language categories are in any way related to precise formulation in terms such as n and n + 1” (Stein, 2022). For instance, he notes that while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) requires symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder to last 6 months, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition, only stipulates that they last for several months. However, this does not solve the problem of vagueness so much","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"15 1","pages":"187 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Assumptions about Vagueness\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Tilmes\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ppp.2022.0038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I thank the commenters for their insightful remarks, from which I have learned much. In my article, I sought to explain psychiatric vagueness, which arises in borderline cases where there is no fact of the matter as to whether a diagnosis rightly can be said to apply.1 I argued “if psychiatric vagueness exists, then some of it is at least partially semantic” (Tilmes, 2022). A semantic account holds that vague utterances express different propositions since small gaps in how linguistic communities apply terms modify their referents, making their precise extension indeterminate.2 On my view, this best accommodates intuitions about the nature of conditions and explains historical changes in the application of psychiatric terms. A semantic account implies that we can sometimes settle diagnostic questions by attending to linguistic data and that some vagueness will remain so long as differences in language use do. I also argued that solely epistemic and ontic accounts—which attribute vagueness to ignorance and the world—come to implausible conclusions about psychiatric vagueness and fail to help us navigate it, respectively. It is worth clarifying my position here. First, I do not claim that all psychiatric vagueness is semantic, but only that some cases of it at least partially are. “This leaves open the possibility of vagueness having multiple sources” (Tilmes, 2022) and does not require abandoning all nonlinguistic considerations. Indeed, thinking that the borders of psychiatric conditions are affected by language need not entail rejecting concepts of etiology or kinds altogether, just as thinking that it is indeterminate when red turns to orange does not entail rejecting the notion that color is shaped by wavelengths of light. Second, I do not argue that diagnostic manuals or theories of psychiatric kinds necessarily reflect assumptions about vagueness, but that each account of vagueness lends itself more to certain approaches. For instance, if understanding psychiatric vagueness as a problem of language commits one to anti-realism, adopting a primarily semantic approach may give one reason to reject realist theories of psychiatry. Dan Stein contends that we should “side-step the Sorites paradox, and its notion that our language categories are in any way related to precise formulation in terms such as n and n + 1” (Stein, 2022). For instance, he notes that while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) requires symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder to last 6 months, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition, only stipulates that they last for several months. However, this does not solve the problem of vagueness so much\",\"PeriodicalId\":45397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"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.2022.0038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0038","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

摘要

我感谢评论者的真知灼见,从中我学到了很多。在我的文章中,我试图解释精神病学的模糊性,这种模糊性出现在没有事实证明诊断是否正确的情况下我认为“如果精神病学存在模糊性,那么其中一些至少部分是语义性的”(Tilmes, 2022)。语义解释认为,模糊话语表达了不同的命题,因为语言群体在如何应用术语修饰其指称物方面存在很小的差距,使得它们的精确扩展不确定在我看来,这最好地适应了对疾病本质的直觉,并解释了精神病学术语应用的历史变化。语义解释意味着,我们有时可以通过关注语言数据来解决诊断性问题,只要语言使用的差异存在,就会存在一些模糊性。我还认为,单独的认识论和本体论——将模糊归因于无知和世界——分别得出了关于精神病学模糊性的难以置信的结论,并不能帮助我们驾驭它。有必要澄清一下我的立场。首先,我并不是说所有精神病学的模糊性都是语义性的,而只是在某些情况下至少部分是这样。“这为模糊性提供了多种来源的可能性”(Tilmes, 2022),并且不需要放弃所有非语言考虑。事实上,认为精神疾病的界限受到语言的影响并不需要完全否定病因学或种类的概念,就像认为红色何时变成橙色是不确定的并不需要否定颜色是由光的波长形成的概念一样。其次,我并不认为诊断手册或精神病学的理论必然反映了对模糊性的假设,但每一种对模糊性的描述都更适合于某些方法。例如,如果将精神病学的模糊性理解为一种语言问题,就会使人陷入反现实主义,那么采用主要的语义方法可能会给人一个拒绝现实主义精神病学理论的理由。Dan Stein认为,我们应该“避开Sorites悖论,以及它的概念,即我们的语言类别在任何方面都与n和n + 1等术语的精确表述有关”(Stein, 2022)。例如,他指出,虽然《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM)要求广泛性焦虑症的症状持续6个月,但《国际疾病分类》(第11版)只规定症状持续几个月。然而,这并不能很好地解决模糊问题
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining Assumptions about Vagueness
I thank the commenters for their insightful remarks, from which I have learned much. In my article, I sought to explain psychiatric vagueness, which arises in borderline cases where there is no fact of the matter as to whether a diagnosis rightly can be said to apply.1 I argued “if psychiatric vagueness exists, then some of it is at least partially semantic” (Tilmes, 2022). A semantic account holds that vague utterances express different propositions since small gaps in how linguistic communities apply terms modify their referents, making their precise extension indeterminate.2 On my view, this best accommodates intuitions about the nature of conditions and explains historical changes in the application of psychiatric terms. A semantic account implies that we can sometimes settle diagnostic questions by attending to linguistic data and that some vagueness will remain so long as differences in language use do. I also argued that solely epistemic and ontic accounts—which attribute vagueness to ignorance and the world—come to implausible conclusions about psychiatric vagueness and fail to help us navigate it, respectively. It is worth clarifying my position here. First, I do not claim that all psychiatric vagueness is semantic, but only that some cases of it at least partially are. “This leaves open the possibility of vagueness having multiple sources” (Tilmes, 2022) and does not require abandoning all nonlinguistic considerations. Indeed, thinking that the borders of psychiatric conditions are affected by language need not entail rejecting concepts of etiology or kinds altogether, just as thinking that it is indeterminate when red turns to orange does not entail rejecting the notion that color is shaped by wavelengths of light. Second, I do not argue that diagnostic manuals or theories of psychiatric kinds necessarily reflect assumptions about vagueness, but that each account of vagueness lends itself more to certain approaches. For instance, if understanding psychiatric vagueness as a problem of language commits one to anti-realism, adopting a primarily semantic approach may give one reason to reject realist theories of psychiatry. Dan Stein contends that we should “side-step the Sorites paradox, and its notion that our language categories are in any way related to precise formulation in terms such as n and n + 1” (Stein, 2022). For instance, he notes that while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) requires symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder to last 6 months, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition, only stipulates that they last for several months. However, this does not solve the problem of vagueness so much
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
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