[A consideration of the relation between psychiatric knowledge and natural science].

Schools of psychiatric thought are as numerous as they are various, each developed from different sources and presuppositions and each claiming faithful adherents. One inherent difficulty in this profusion of choice lies in discerning whether or not a particular school's presuppositions are valid. To accept one theory is to choose one opinion towards philosophical aporiae--often at the expense of all others. In this paper, issues of scientific philosophy are examined in considering the presuppositions and progress of psychiatric schools. Popper convincingly argued that scientific statements should be "falsifiable." However, because propositions of psychoanalysis or phenomenological psychiatry are closely tied to individual clinical experiences, such statements tend to be exclusive and difficult to check or falsify by other reseachers. They are, in this respect and according to Popper's point of view, necessarily less scientific. Phenomena of the human mind, by its very nature, cannot be observed nor measured directly. Interpretation of the phenomena therefore depends almost entirely upon which theoretical school the researcher has adopted. Biological psychiatry, however, insists that any researcher can objectively measure such phenomenon, and that propositions of biological psychiatry can be connected with those of other branches of natural science. Natural science grandly attempts to comprehensively describe the whole world using one language. This means the researcher is supposedly measuring an object positioned in an ideal and definite position, reached only through infinite steps. Phenomenology is very conscious that the observed object consists at least partly of the observing subject, and so this ideal positioning seems untenable. Phenomenology therefore describes this world from another point of view, different from natural science, and the distinction between measurement of certain systems from inside or outside is important for purposes of explanation and clarification. Although natural science attempts to attain the ideal infinite view, on-going science is naturally limited. In psychiatric practice, we can never rely on one definitive theory; but must rather adopt an appropriate theory to solve an appropriate problem.