Explanatory Pluralism in Psychiatry: What Are We Pluralists About, and Why?

Campaner, Raffaella

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_7

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we mentioned, in psychopathological research, psychology and psychiatry start to collide or merge. We can say even stronger that psychopathological studies, historical and contemporary, are (or at least should be) interdisciplinary, where psychiatrists, psychologists, neuroscientists, and even philosophers or ethicists cooperate (see : Campaner, 2014). Therefore, if we want to separate one thread and focus on, for example, the psychological aspect of psychopathology, we should be cautious in disentangling it, because it easy to conflate threads from biographies of different disciplines.…”

Section: From Interdisciplinary Research To Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, contemporary literature is increasingly pointing to the plurality and diversity of psychopathological research. It is becoming more and more common to take a pluralistic position (see : Campaner, 2014;Van Bouwel, 2014;Zachar, 2012). 3 And although this pluralism itself is not necessarily related to the disciplinary diversity and vice versa, it seems that the possibility that this pluralism is the result of differences between disciplines involved in studying psychopathology is worth considering.…”

Section: From Interdisciplinary Research To Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology: On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Nowakowski¹

2020

AVANT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a loose commentary on Marcinów's book (2017). The commentary is focused on the objects of psychopathological investigations and the role of psychology / psychiatry tension in the process of singling out, tracking, and describing them. As a consequence, there are limitations of collaborative and integrative efforts between psychologists and psychiatrists where questions of psychopathology are concerned.

show abstract

Section: From Interdisciplinary Research To Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: From Interdisciplinary Research To Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology: On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Nowakowski¹

2020

AVANT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the most thoughtful analyses of explanatory pluralism are those of Marchionni ( 13 ), Mitchell ( 14 ), Campaner ( 15 ), and Van Bouwel ( 16 ). [Closely related, though couched in a different terminology and less focused on the technical details of explanation, is Brigandt ( 17 ) account of explanatory integration as an intermediate between reductionism and pluralism.]…”

Section: From Unity Of Science To Explanatory Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This seems to be the background against which Campaner ( 15 ), in an attempt to explain how different kinds of psychiatric explanation can be combined, asks the following pertinent questions about explanatory pluralism: Is there any underlying idea that some sort of complete explanatory picture can be – sooner or later – elaborated, or is some more radical form of pluralism advanced here? Is pluralism suggested here as only the acknowledgement of the existence and toleration of a diversity of current explanatory theories, or also as the idea that distinctive views will persist as such in the long run?…”

Section: From Unity Of Science To Explanatory Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explanatory Pluralism and the (Dis)Unity of Science: The Argument from Incompatible Counterfactual Consequences

Gijsbers

2016

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between different sciences or research approaches that deal with the same phenomena, for instance, with the phenomena of the human mind? Answers to this question range from a monist perspective according to which one of these approaches is privileged over the others, through an integrationist perspective according to which they must strive to form a unity greater than the sum of its parts, to an isolationist perspective according to which each of them has its own autonomous sphere of validity. In order to assess these perspectives in this article, I discuss the debates about the unity of science and about explanatory pluralism. The most pressing issue turns out to be the choice between the integrative and the isolationist perspective: the question is whether the integrative tendencies in science should be fully indulged in or whether they should be held in check by acknowledging that a certain amount of isolation is necessary. I argue that the issue can be further distilled into the question of whether two true explanations of the same fact can ever fail to be combinable into one single explanation. I show that this can indeed be the case, namely, when the explanations have incompatible counterfactual consequences, something that is often the case when we try to combine explanations from different sciences or research approaches. These approaches thus embody perspectives on the world that are to a certain extent autonomous. This leads to the conclusion that although interdisciplinarity may have many advantages, we should not take the project of integration too far. At the end of the day, the different research approaches with their different perspectives and insights must remain precisely that: different and somewhat disunified.

show abstract

“…In a period in which Italian psychiatry was preoccupied with biological reductionist notions of mental illness, Perusini decided to focus on unsolved problems, criticizing the narrow view of a discipline based only on biological and anatomical assumptions (Passione, 2013). Drawing on the principles of a ‘critical positivism’, he emphasized the idea of a pluralist nature of psychiatry, a matter which is still being debated today in both the philosophy of science and psychiatric practice (Campaner, 2014; Colucci, 2013; Kendler and Parnas, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemological issues in the history of Italian psychiatry: the contribution of Gaetano Perusini (1879–1915)

Passione

2015

Hist Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Italian psychiatry was characterized by its emphasis on an organic explanation of mental illness. 'Cerebral mythology' was a major influence in Italy, at least until the second half of the twentieth century, often at the expense of the development of psychology. In this context, a few psychiatrists adopted a different epistemological perspective, based on a more 'integrative' view of their discipline. In particular, Gaetano Perusini stands out. He promoted the concept of psychiatry as a science which embraced many different fields, thus emphasizing the theme of pluralism, which is still debated today in the philosophy of science and psychiatric practice.

show abstract

Explanatory Pluralism in Psychiatry: What Are We Pluralists About, and Why?

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology: On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology: On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Explanatory Pluralism and the (Dis)Unity of Science: The Argument from Incompatible Counterfactual Consequences

Epistemological issues in the history of Italian psychiatry: the contribution of Gaetano Perusini (1879–1915)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About