CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2024
| Author | Rowe, Stephen |
|---|---|
| Title | Challenging the Sovereignty of Science in Classifying Mental Disorders |
| Summary | Deciding what should count as a mental disorder is an important and difficult task. In this thesis I compare three approaches to classifying mental disorders that provide different takes on how relevant the natural sciences are to disorder classification: first, a naturalistic one which makes science sovereign in classification — i.e., it claims that the natural sciences alone are necessary and sufficient for disorder classification. The second approach is a hybrid one, which argues that the natural sciences are necessary, but not sufficient — a further normative condition being required. The final approach is a pragmatic one which argues that the conditions change depending on the contexts. Using an extended version of an argument from Kukla (2022), I argue that the pragmatic approach is preferrable over the other two. I defend this argument from two objections: (a) one from the naturalistic approach which argues it is preferable because it prevents overmedicalisation whereas pragmatism promotes it, and (b) an argument from the hybrid approaches that Kukla fails to show that there can be no one set of necessary and sufficient conditions that work for all contexts. Ultimately, I conclude that there is good reason to think that Kukla is right — depending on the context, the conditions for classifying something as a mental disorder change. |
| Supervisor | Kronfeldner, Maria |
| Department | Philosophy MA |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2024/rowe_stephen.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University