Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 8:48:02
In reply to Re: internet, manu. of madness- anorexia {trigger} » Jost, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 8:32:06
I had my suspicions... And I had my suspicions recently confirmed.
BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM
In philosophy biological reductionism is the view that mental properties can be reduced to biological properties.
(Okay so there is controversy over whether you are dealing with facts, objects, properties, or kinds, but so as not to complicate things too much...)
DUALISM
In philosophy dualism is the view that mental properties (facts, objects, properties, or kinds) cannot be reduced to biological properties.
Hence... One can't be a biological reductionist and a dualist at the same time on pain of contradiction...
Wakefield criticises the medical model of mental illness for:
1) Being biologically reductionist
AND
2) Being dualist
Hence... WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT???Turns out that the lay of the land seems to be...
BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM
Is a methodology. As a methodology one studies the biological facts. (e.g., genes, neuro-science, pharmachology)
Hence it makes sense to talk of
PSYCHOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM
Is a methodology. As a methodology one studies the psychological facts. (e.g., cognitive-behaviour theory or whatever and therapy)
(In philosophy psychological reductionism would probably be... Berkeley's idealism which is fairly unfashionable since Locke...)
DUALISM
Is... Get this... The view that one methodology is unrelated to the other. Hence you don't need to worry about those people over there. So both the biological and psychological reductionists (so to speak) were considered dualists (so to speak).
Dammit.
Why can't there be a consensus on terminology?
There needs to be a terminology police.
PBC
(Please be comprehensible)
;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:684913
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060911/msgs/686499.html