Department of Psychology, Auburn University at Montgomery, Montgomery, Alabama 36124-4023; email:
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry and Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23219-1534; email:
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017 May 8;13:49-71. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045020.
Many scholars believe that psychiatric nosology is undergoing a crisis of confidence. Some of the issues up for debate hark back to the introduction of the natural history approach to classification in the seventeenth century. Natural histories map sameness and difference rather than speculate about causes. In contrast, the natural classification approach aspires to carve nature at the joints by demarcating classifications by causes. Natural classifications are more ideal scientifically, but speculation about causality has had a poor track record in psychiatric nosology. A natural classification of psychiatric disorders may have the added burden of requiring normative assumptions in addition to the discovery of fact. In the natural classification tradition, the epistemic iteration perspective, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, and dimensional models offer different views about the criteria of naturalness (or validity). Also in this tradition, some thinkers believe that causes can be empirically indexed by latent variable models, especially if the latent variables are moderately heritable, but these assumptions may be neither statistically nor genetically warranted.
许多学者认为精神病学的分类学正面临着信心危机。一些有待讨论的问题可以追溯到 17 世纪自然史方法引入分类学的时候。自然史描绘的是相似性和差异性,而不是推测原因。相比之下,自然分类方法则试图通过根据原因来划分分类来把握自然的关节。自然分类在科学上更理想,但在精神病学的分类学中,对因果关系的推测一直记录不佳。对精神障碍进行自然分类除了发现事实之外,可能还需要额外的规范性假设。在自然分类传统中,知识迭代观点、研究领域标准(RDoC)倡议和维度模型提供了对自然性(或有效性)标准的不同看法。同样在这一传统中,一些思想家认为可以通过潜在变量模型来对原因进行实证索引,尤其是如果潜在变量具有适度的遗传性,但这些假设在统计学上或遗传上可能都没有依据。