Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?

Abstract

The validity of claims made about 'schizophrenia' (that it\nis a scientific concept and that it refers to a syndrome)\nwas assessed in three analyses: of the writings of those\nsaid first to have described schizophrenia; of the\ndevelopment of rules for inferring schizophrenia and of\n'genetic' research said to be central to the concept's\ntheoretical network. Four major conclusions were drawn: 1.\nThat there was no evidence to support the original\nintroduction of 'schizophrenia', but good evidence that\nsome of the population from which it was derived were\nsuffering from a later-identified neurological disorder.\n2. That the rules for inferring schizophrenia have been\ndeveloped in a manner quite different from the development\nof concepts in the empirical sciences and in medicine. 3.\nThat there is no evidence that the rules set out in DSM-111\nrefer either to a syndrome or to any pattern of phenomena\nand 4. that 'genetic' research has been seriously\nmisrepresented in secondary sources and does not support\n'schizophrenia'.\nA number of factors were discussed as possibly important in\nexplaining the continued use and influence of\n‘schizophrenia'. These included the use of popular but\nfallacious types of argument to defend the concept, the\nfunctions it apparently serves for psychiatry and the\npublic, the perceived primacy of biological or\ndispositional explanations of behaviour and the habits of\n'seeing' patterns in unrelated phenomena, of inferring\nbefore describing, of reifying constructs and of confusing\nobservation and inference.\nFinally, the implications of abandoning 'schizophrenia'\nwere discussed and the weak foundations of the distinctions\nbetween 'normal, and abnormal' behaviour emphasised. An\nalternative framework, derived from the experimental\nanalysis of behaviour was suggested and illustrated, both\nfor the analysis of bizarre behaviour and of the conditions\nunder which it is seen as symptomatic of schizophrenia.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 295 citations exist upstream.