Hauptseite > Publikationsdatenbank > The philosophy of psychiatry and biologism > print

001     156398
005     20210129214243.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 2128/8010
|2 Handle
024 7 _ |a WOS:000341942900001
|2 WOS
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2014-05146
082 _ _ |a 150
100 1 _ |a Stier, Marco
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|e Corresponding Author
245 _ _ |a The philosophy of psychiatry and biologism
260 _ _ |a Lausanne
|c 2014
|b Frontiers Research Foundation
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 156398
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a 472 - Key Technologies and Innovation Processes (POF2-472)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-472
|c POF2-472
|f POF II
|x 0
536 _ _ |a 89574 - Theory, modelling and simulation (POF2-89574)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89574
|c POF2-89574
|x 1
|f POF II T
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Schoene-Seifert, Bettina
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Rüther, Markus
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)161345
|b 2
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Muders, Sebastian
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
773 _ _ |a 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032
|g Vol. 5
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2563826-9
|p 1032
|t Frontiers in psychology
|v 5
|y 2014
|x 1664-1078
856 4 _ |u http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01032/full
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.pdf
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-144
|x icon-144
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-180
|x icon-180
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/156398/files/FZJ-2014-05146.jpg?subformat=icon-640
|x icon-640
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:156398
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p driver
|p VDB
|p dnbdelivery
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)161345
913 2 _ |a DE-HGF
|b POF III
|l Key Technologies
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-570
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-574
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500
|v Decoding the Human Brain
|x 0
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Energie
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-470
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-472
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-100
|v Key Technologies and Innovation Processes
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF2
|l Technologie, Innovation und Gesellschaft
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89574
|v Theory, modelling and simulation
|x 1
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-890
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-800
|b Programmungebundene Forschung
|l ohne Programm
914 1 _ |y 2014
915 _ _ |a Peer Review unknown
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0040
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4
|2 HGFVOC
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406
|k INM-8
|l Ethik in den Neurowissenschaften
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a FullTexts
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406
980 1 _ |a FullTexts

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21