000156398 001__ 156398
000156398 005__ 20210129214243.0
000156398 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032
000156398 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/8010
000156398 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000341942900001
000156398 037__ $$aFZJ-2014-05146
000156398 082__ $$a150
000156398 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aStier, Marco$$b0$$eCorresponding Author
000156398 245__ $$aThe philosophy of psychiatry and biologism
000156398 260__ $$aLausanne$$bFrontiers Research Foundation$$c2014
000156398 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s156398
000156398 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000156398 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000156398 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000156398 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000156398 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000156398 520__ $$aIn the philosophy of psychiatry, there has been an ongoing dispute about the capabilities and limits of the bio-natural sciences as a source of methods and knowledge for quite some time now. Still, many problems remain unsolved. This is at least in part due to the regrettable fact that the opposing parties are far too rarely prepared to swap ideas and to try to increase their mutual understanding. On the one hand there are those—psychiatrists as well as philosophers—who maintain a more mentalistic and/or phenomenalistic view of the psyche and its disturbances. On the other hand there are researchers who follow biologically inspired strategies: Since the human mind is something through and through biological, mental diseases, too, can and should be explained and treated biologically. Even though there are examples of fruitful collaboration, in general the split prevails. One often gets the impression that both sides remain in their “trenches”, busy with confirming each other's opinions and developing their positions in isolation. Even though there are also examples of fruitful collaboration, the split leads to several shortcomings:(1) Good arguments and insights from both sides of the debate get less attention than they deserve.(2) The further improvement of each position becomes harder without criticism, genuinely motivated by the opposing standpoint.(3) The debate is not going to stop, at least not in the way it would finish after a suggested solution finds broad support.(4) Related to this, insisting on the ultimate aptness of one side is just plainly wrong in almost every case, since undeniably, most philosophical positions usually have a grain of truth hidden in them.In sum, many controversies persist with regard to the appropriate methodological, epistemological, and even ontological level for psychiatric explanation and therapies. In a conference which took place in December 2011 in Muenster, Germany, we tried to contribute to a better understanding about what really is at issue in the philosophy of psychiatry. We asked for a possible common basis for several positions, for points of divergence, and for the practical impact of different solutions on everyday work in psychiatry.The present Frontiers research topic is a fruit of that conference. Since psychiatry is a subject too wide to be covered in toto, this research topic collects six target articles, each focusing a particular aspect. They are accompanied by a number of commentaries providing both critical and supportive arguments.
000156398 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF2-472$$a472 - Key Technologies and Innovation Processes (POF2-472)$$cPOF2-472$$fPOF II$$x0
000156398 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89574$$a89574 - Theory, modelling and simulation (POF2-89574)$$cPOF2-89574$$fPOF II T$$x1
000156398 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, juser.fz-juelich.de
000156398 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aSchoene-Seifert, Bettina$$b1
000156398 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)161345$$aRüther, Markus$$b2$$ufzj
000156398 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aMuders, Sebastian$$b3
000156398 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2563826-9$$a10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032$$gVol. 5$$p1032$$tFrontiers in psychology$$v5$$x1664-1078$$y2014
000156398 8564_ $$uhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032/full
000156398 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000156398 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-144$$xicon-144$$yOpenAccess
000156398 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-180$$xicon-180$$yOpenAccess
000156398 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-640$$xicon-640$$yOpenAccess
000156398 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:156398$$pdnbdelivery$$pVDB$$pdriver$$popen_access$$popenaire
000156398 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)161345$$aForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH$$b2$$kFZJ
000156398 9132_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-574$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-570$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500$$aDE-HGF$$bPOF III$$lKey Technologies$$vDecoding the Human Brain$$x0
000156398 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF2-472$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF2-470$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF2-100$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF2$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bEnergie$$lTechnologie, Innovation und Gesellschaft$$vKey Technologies and Innovation Processes$$x0
000156398 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89574$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-890$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-800$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bProgrammungebundene Forschung$$lohne Programm$$vTheory, modelling and simulation$$x1
000156398 9141_ $$y2014
000156398 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0040$$2StatID$$aPeer Review unknown
000156398 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000156398 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ
000156398 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000156398 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4$$2HGFVOC$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
000156398 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406$$kINM-8$$lEthik in den Neurowissenschaften$$x0
000156398 980__ $$ajournal
000156398 980__ $$aVDB
000156398 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000156398 980__ $$aFullTexts
000156398 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406
000156398 9801_ $$aFullTexts