Delusions in the two-factor theory

Author:

Lancellotta Eugenia1ORCID,Bortolotti Lisa1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Birmingham

Abstract

In this paper we ask whether the two-factor theory of delusions is compatible with two claims, that delusions are pathological and that delusions are adaptive. We concentrate on two recent and influential models of the two-factor theory: the one proposed by Max Coltheart, Peter Menzies and John Sutton (2010) and the one developed by Ryan McKay (2012). The models converge on the nature of Factor 1 but diverge about the nature of Factor 2. The differences between the two models are reflected in different accounts of the pathological and adaptive nature of delusions. We will explore such differences, considering naturalist and normativist accounts of the pathological and focusing on judgements of adaptiveness that are informed by the shear-pin hypothesis (McKay and Dennett 2009). After reaching our conclusions about the two models, we draw more general implications for the status of delusions within two-factor theories. Are there good grounds to claim that delusions are pathological? Are delusions ever adaptive? Can delusions be at the same time pathological and adaptive?

Publisher

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Rijeka

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy

Reference26 articles.

1. Davies, A. M., and M. Davies. 2009. Explaining pathologies of belief. In Psychiatry as Cognitive Neuroscience, eds. M. Broome and L. Bortolotti, ch. 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Bortolotti, L. 2015. The epistemic innocence of motivated delusions. Consciousness & Cognition 33: 490-499.

3. The epistemic benefits of elaborated and systematised delusions in schizophrenia;Bortolotti;British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,2016

4. Doctors without disorders;Bortolotti;Aristotelian Society Supplementary,2020

5. Butler, P. V. 2000. Reverse Othello syndrome subsequent to traumatic brain injury. Psychiatry 63(1): 85‐92.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Are delusions pathological beliefs?;Asian Journal of Philosophy;2022-07

2. Debunking Doxastic Transparency;European journal of analytic philosophy;2022-02-22

3. Reconsidering harm in psychiatric manuals within an explicationist framework;Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy;2022-01-17

4. When a Hybrid Account of Disorder is not Enough;European journal of analytic philosophy;2021-12-01

5. Expressivism about delusion attribution;European journal of analytic philosophy;2020-11-08

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3