Logical empiricism and psychiatric classification

Comprehensive Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.38). 01/1986; 27:101-14.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Nosology has become a widely discussed topic in psychiatry with the appearance of DSM-III. Most current treatments of diagnostic categorization, however, presuppose a particular philosophy of science: logical empiricism. Ideas of Carl G. Hempel, a leading proponent of logical empiricism. can be shown to illuminate the contemporary classification of mental disorders. Moreover, the importance attached by many prominent psychiatrists to operational definitions in nosology can be seen to grow from logical empiricist roots. Even the etiology of mental disorders can be placed within a logical empiricist framework. We describe this logical empiricist position in order to prepare for alternative approaches to classification.

0 0
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Questions concerning both the ontology and epistemology of the "psychiatric object" (symptoms and signs) should be at the forefront of current concerns of psychiatry as a clinical neuroscience. We argue that neglect of these issues is a crucial source of the stagnation of psychiatric research. In honor of the centenary of Karl Jaspers' book, General Psychopathology, we offer a critique of the contemporary "operationalist" epistemology, a critique that is consistent with Jaspers' views. Symptoms and signs cannot be properly understood or identified apart from an appreciation of the nature of consciousness or subjectivity, which in turn cannot be treated as a collection of thing-like, mutually independent objects, accessible to context-free, "atheoretical" definitions or unproblematic forms of measurement (as is often assumed in structured interviewing). Adequate and faithful distinctions in the phenomenal or experiential realm are therefore a fundamental prerequisite for classification, treatment, and research. This requires a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating (among other things) insights provided by psychology, phenomenological philosophy, and the philosophy of mind.
    Schizophrenia Bulletin 12/2012; · 8.80 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews several current issues associated with the definition and assessment of personality disorders (PDs) as defined in the third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Specifically reviewed are issues associated with classification, PD conceptualizations, and the assessment of these disorders. DSM PD categories are also reviewed in terms of their psychometric properties. A review of the PD assessment literature suggests that DSM conceptualizations and definitions of PDs are problematic at both conceptual and quantitative levels. This article concludes with suggestions for possible alternative approaches to and modifications of DSM PD assessment.
    Clinical Psychology Review 11/2000; 20(7):823-51. · 6.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.
    Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 05/2012; 7:9.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 15, 2012