Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2 (3):265-274 (1999)
|Abstract||The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the epistemic position of psychiatry between the science of general laws in relation to frequently encountered generality and the science of specific events which is directed towards the particular. In this respect the development of the dichotomy of nomothetic and idiographic methodology from its generally forgotten neo-Kantian origins (Windelband, Rickert, Natorp, Bauch, MÃ¼nch, Hessen, MÃ¼nsterberg) is delineated within the context of a historical-philosophical analysis and then its incorporation into psychology and psychopathology (Stern, Binswanger, Kronfeld, Jaspers) is reconstructed. In the course of this analysis and also in the discussion of the currently accepted theories of analytical philosophy (StegmÃ¼ller) and critical rationalism (Popper) it becomes clear that, in spite of widespread current opinions to the contrary, individualizing concept formation is an indispensable element in the methodological inventory of psychiatric science|
|Keywords||epistemology history idiographic individual natural sciences nomothetic psychology psychopathology science of general laws science of specific events|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Isaac Franck (1982). Psychology as a Science: Resolving the Idiographic-Nomothetic Controversy. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 12 (1):1–20.
Kristian Köchy (1999). Zwischen der „Physik Des Organischen” Und der „Organisierung der Physik”: Überlegungen Zu Gegenstand Und Methode der Biologie. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30 (1):59 - 85.
Gregory M. Mikkelson (2003). Ecological Kinds and Ecological Laws. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1390-1400.
Elisabetta Basso (2012). From the Problem of the Nature of Psychosis to the Phenomenological Reform of Psychiatry. Historical and Epistemological Remarks on Ludwig Binswanger's Psychiatric Project. Medicine Studies 3 (4):215-232.
Uljana Feest (2010). “Historical Perspectives on Erklären and Verstehen: Introduction”. In Uljana Feest (ed.), Historical Perspectives on Erklären and Verstehen.
Jonathan H. Turner (1983). Idiographic Vs. Nomothetic Explanation: A Comment on Porpora's Conclusion. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 13 (3):273–280.
Joel Paris (2008). Prescriptions for the Mind: A Critical View of Contemporary Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.
Andrzej Malewski & Jerzy Topolski (2011). The Nomothetic Versus the Idiographic Approach to History. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 97 (1):299-309.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (2):229 - 243.
James T. Lamiell (1986). What is Nomothetic About “Nomothetic” Personality Research? Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 6 (2):97-107.
Jutta Schickore (2012). What Does History Matter to Philosophy of Science? The Concept of Replication and the Methodology of Experiments. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):513-532.
Joseph Nahem (1981). Psychology & Psychiatry Today: A Marxist View. International Publishers.
Kenneth S. Kendler & Kenneth F. Schaffner (2011). The Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia: An Historical and Philosophical Analysis. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 18 (1):41-63.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads8 ( #131,679 of 722,774 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?