% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Stier:156398,
      author       = {Stier, Marco and Schoene-Seifert, Bettina and Rüther,
                      Markus and Muders, Sebastian},
      title        = {{T}he philosophy of psychiatry and biologism},
      journal      = {Frontiers in psychology},
      volume       = {5},
      issn         = {1664-1078},
      address      = {Lausanne},
      publisher    = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2014-05146},
      pages        = {1032},
      year         = {2014},
      abstract     = {In 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.},
      cin          = {INM-8},
      ddc          = {150},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406},
      pnm          = {472 - Key Technologies and Innovation Processes (POF2-472)
                      / 89574 - Theory, modelling and simulation (POF2-89574)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF2-472 / G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89574},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000341942900001},
      doi          = {10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398},
}