We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The National Institute for Mental Illness (NIMH) launched in 2008 a project based on ‘precision medicine,’ called Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). This precision medicine approach, novel in the context of psychiatry, proposes to identify the “fundamental components of behavior,” determining their range of variations from normality to abnormality and identifying their instantiations at different levels of the biological mechanism. To achieve its goal, an essential task of the RDoC initiative has been to identify and classify psychological constructs associated with psychopathology and to cut them off at a finer degree of granularity, presumably in order to have a greater chance of finding the biological mechanisms which implement every resultant part.
Objectives
Our work aims to show the limitations that psychiatry faces when assuming the mechanistic model of explanations. We will show how, if we accept the phenomenon of multiple realization, it is not plausible to expect that the RDoC initiative will be successful in their enterprise to track single or precise causal mechanisms for every construct identified at the cognitive level.
Methods
Philosophical argumentation
Results
No results.
Conclusions
We conclude that an approach that aims to identify single functional units and to dig down at a “fundamental level” to find their neural or genetic implementation should not only be reconsidered in terms of the phenomenon of multiple realization, but also leaves a gap in our understanding of the complex structures that are found at the cognitive-functional level and whose dysfunctions would be of great explanatory relevance concerning mental disorders.
Psychologists and neuroscientists began to build bridges and linked their inquiries together. Both philosophers and scientists employ the term reduction in characterizing relations between the results of higher-level and basic-level inquiries that are supposedly jeopardized by multiple realization. This chapter describes an understanding of reduction provided by the framework of mechanistic explanation that fits with the pursuit's scientists label reductionistic. There are differences between the mechanisms in different species that result in what are treated as the same phenomena. The chapter takes up this issue directly and discusses that the same standards of typing are applied to phenomena as to realizations. It considers what happens when one uses a coarser grain to type neural phenomena. The chapter presents the research on circadian rhythms as an exemplar as this is a field in which the issues concerning multiple realization, conservation of mechanism, and identity.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.