This book is about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, more commonly known as the D.S.M. The D.S.M. is published by the American Psychiatric Association and aims to list and describe all mental disorders. The D.S.M. is embedded in mental health care at every turn. In the U.S., hospital records note a D.S.M. diagnosis and medical insurance companies demand D.S.M. codes before they will consider reimbursing for the cost of care. Worldwide, research papers are couched in D.S.M. terminology and pharmaceutical companies list the D.S.M. diagnoses that their drugs treat. Mental health professionals, and their patients, can not avoid being affected by the D.S.M.
The D.S.M. is important, but it is also controversial. While its publishers claim that the D.S.M. is a scientific classification system based on sound data, many have doubts. Big business has interests in the D.S.M. Perhaps the D.S.M. has been distorted by pressures stemming from insurance companies, or from pharmaceutical companies? Others are concerned that whether a condition is classified as a mental disorder depends too greatly on social and political factors. More conceptual worries are also frequent. If classification requires a theory, and if mental disorders are poorly understood, then a sound classification system may be presently unobtainable. Possibly even attempting to construct a classification system that "cuts nature at the joints" is conceptually naâ€¹ve. Maybe types of mental disorder are radically unlike, say, chemical elements, and simply fail to have a natural structure.
Classifying Madness offers a sustained philosophical critique of the D.S.M. that addresses these concerns. The first half of the book asks whether the project of constructing a classification of mental disorders that reflects natural distinctions makes sense. I conclude that it does. The second half of the book addresses epistemic worries. Even supposing a natural classification system to be possible in principle, there may be reasons to be suspicious of the categories included in the D.S.M. I examine the extent to which the D.S.M. depends on psychiatric theory, and look at how it has been shaped by social and financial factors. I aim to be critical of the D.S.M. without being antagonistic towards it. Ultimately, however, I am forced to conclude that although the D.S.M. is of immense practical importance, it is not on track to become the best possible classification of mental disorders.
Classifying Madness will be of interest to both mental health professionals and to philosophers interested in classification in science. The possibility that there may be philosophical difficulties with the D.S.M. has become a commonplace in the mental health literature, and Classifying Madness offers mental health professionals an opportunity to explore suspicions that there might be conceptual problems with the D.S.M. For philosophers, this book aims to contribute to debates in the philosophy of science concerning natural kinds, the theory-ladenness of classification, and the effect of sociological factors in science. These issues are normally approached via a consideration of the natural sciences and, as will be seen, approaching them via a consideration of psychiatry helps shed new light on old problems.
The English Franciscan philosopher and theologian, Adam of Wodeham (d. 1358), was a disciple and friend of William of Ockham; he was also a student of Walther Chatton. Nevertheless, he was an independent thinker who did not hesitate to criticize his former teachers - Ockham sporadically and benevolently, Chatton, frequently and aggressively. Since W odeham developed his own doctrinal position by a thorough critical examination of current opinions, the first part of this introducÂ tion briefly outlines the positions of the chief figures in the English controversy over indivisibles. The second part of the introduction preÂ sents a summary of Wodeham's views in the Tractatus de indivisibilibus, lists the contents of the treatise, and considers the question of its date and its chronological position in the context of Wodeham's other works. In the third part, the editorial procedures used here are set forth. 1. THE INDIVISIBILIST CONTROVERSY In the literature of the 13th and 14th centuries, the term 'indivisible' refers to a simple, un extended entity. Consequently, these indivisibles are not physical atoms but either mathematical points, temporal instants or indivisibles of motion, usually called mutata esse. I THOMAS BRADWARDINE (d. 1349), roughly contemporary with Wodeham, classified the positions it was possible to take regarding indivisibles. He described his own view as the common view, that of "Aristotle, A verroes, and most of the moderns," according to which a "continuum was not composed of atoms (athomis) but of parts divisible without end.
This volume contains the formal record of the lectures presented at the 9th Course of the International School of Radiation Damage and Protection held at the "E . Majorana" International Centre for Scientific Culture in Erice (Italy) from May 9 to May 20, 1989. This course was the last of a series of 4 courses, started in 1981, that were dedicated to the assessment of risk hazard from non-ionizing radiation. The proceedings of these courses were all published by Plenum Press with the following headings: 1) M. Grandolfo, S. M. Michaelson and A. Rindi, Eds. : "Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Nonionizing Radiation; Radiofrequency and Microwave Energy", Plenum Press, New York, NATO ASI Series A Life Sciences, Vo1. 49 (1983); 2) M. Grandolfo, S. M. Michaelson and A. Rindi, Eds. : "Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Static and ELF Electromagnetic Fields", Plenum Press, New York, E. Majorana International Science Series, Life Sciences, Vol. 19 (1985) ; 3) M. H. Repacholi, M. Grandolfo and A. Rindi, Eds. : "Ultrasound; medical applications, biological effects and hazard potential", Plenum Press, New York (1987). We hope that all these volumes together may represent a complete textbook and a reference for the students and scientists interested in the physics, biology, measurement and dosimetry, health effects and standard setting, in short, the risk assessment of that wide field of radiation presently classified as non-ionizing radiation. We are indebted to the Associa?ione Italiana Protezione dalle Radiazioni (AIRP), The Internat:l.
Due to the increasingly complex mineralogy, and lower grade of many current ore reserves, technology has, over the past decade, had to evolve rapidly to treat these materials economically in an industry which has undergone severe periods of recession. However, most of the technical innovations, such as the increasing use of solvent-extraction, ion-exchange etc., have been in the field of chemical ore processing, and, apart from the use of computers and ever larger unit process machines, there have been few major evolutionary changes in the field of physical mineral processing, where conventional crushing and grinding methods, essentially unchanged in half a century, are followed by the 'old-faithfuls'- flotation, gravity, magnetic and electrostatic methods of separation. Many of these techniques have major limitations in the treatment of 'new' ores such as complex sulphides, and the main purpose of the NATO Advanced study Institute (ASI)Â "Mineral Processing at a Crossroads" was to review the future of mineral processing. One of the great failings of physical methods is their inability to treat ultra-fine particles, and much research effort is required in this area. Flotation is still the most widely used and researched method for separating minerals, and is the only method which can be used to produce separate concentrates from complex sulphide ores. However, its performance on these 'modern' ores is poor, and it is in this area particularly that chemical methods will increasingly be integrated into plant circuits.
Sydney Classifieds Articles
Sydney Classifieds Books