“the "philosophical" questions are practically all ontological, without much thought given to philosophy of science and epistemology”
In my chapter or more generally? In the chapter I do touch on some of the epistemological issues (especially in the context of inclusion of lived experience).
“the "philosophical" questions are practically all ontological, without much thought given to philosophy of science and epistemology”
In my chapter or more generally? In the chapter I do touch on some of the epistemological issues (especially in the context of inclusion of lived experience).
I think the issue of FDA standards or standards of medication efficacy usually gets covered under debates around “evidence based medicine.” I plan to write at some point about the clinical vs research perspective on these things.
"practically all ontological" was overstating it, but ontology and phenomenology seem to be the focus, e.g., the first question here being "... Might you begin though by telling us what you mean by ‘conceptual competence’ and what it looks like in the clinical psychiatrist? ..." and your answer to it; your "integrative and critical pluralism" approach to critical psychiatry, which seems to emphasize conceptual frameworks and value differences, while minimizing possible factual disputes; and a general "vibe," based on a dearth of epistemological questions/concerns appearing non-interview blog posts and your collaborations with other psychiatrist-writers.
Naturally, interviews and guest posts are not conductive to questioning guests' claims of fact, but the topic of epistemological challenges in the psy-sciences also seems under-represented in your writing. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - not every author needs to give proportional attention to every topic in their niche, of course, and their work might be worse, if they tried. However, "bridging the gap between the fields of philosophy of psychiatry and critical psychiatry" requires addressing questions of facts within and the methodologies of the psy-sciences, at some point, so I thought it was a question worth asking.
“the "philosophical" questions are practically all ontological, without much thought given to philosophy of science and epistemology”
In my chapter or more generally? In the chapter I do touch on some of the epistemological issues (especially in the context of inclusion of lived experience).
I think the issue of FDA standards or standards of medication efficacy usually gets covered under debates around “evidence based medicine.” I plan to write at some point about the clinical vs research perspective on these things.
"practically all ontological" was overstating it, but ontology and phenomenology seem to be the focus, e.g., the first question here being "... Might you begin though by telling us what you mean by ‘conceptual competence’ and what it looks like in the clinical psychiatrist? ..." and your answer to it; your "integrative and critical pluralism" approach to critical psychiatry, which seems to emphasize conceptual frameworks and value differences, while minimizing possible factual disputes; and a general "vibe," based on a dearth of epistemological questions/concerns appearing non-interview blog posts and your collaborations with other psychiatrist-writers.
Naturally, interviews and guest posts are not conductive to questioning guests' claims of fact, but the topic of epistemological challenges in the psy-sciences also seems under-represented in your writing. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - not every author needs to give proportional attention to every topic in their niche, of course, and their work might be worse, if they tried. However, "bridging the gap between the fields of philosophy of psychiatry and critical psychiatry" requires addressing questions of facts within and the methodologies of the psy-sciences, at some point, so I thought it was a question worth asking.
I hope that's more clear. Thanks!