Critics argue that DSM psychiatric diagnoses do not describe real entities. I portray categorical and dimensional diagnoses as ways of giving form to scientific data rather than descriptions of a mind-independent reality. This means they can be scientifically legitimate on a neo-Kantian account. By constituting different inductive and causal probabilities, I argue categorical psychiatric diagnoses can still play an important role even if RDoC and HiTOP produce new dimensional diagnoses.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Conclusion

  • Sam Fellowes

摘要

Critics argue that DSM psychiatric diagnoses do not describe real entities. I portray categorical and dimensional diagnoses as ways of giving form to scientific data rather than descriptions of a mind-independent reality. This means they can be scientifically legitimate on a neo-Kantian account. By constituting different inductive and causal probabilities, I argue categorical psychiatric diagnoses can still play an important role even if RDoC and HiTOP produce new dimensional diagnoses.