Search

Although the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) clearly indicates delusions have an epistemic dimension, it fails to accurately identify the epistemic properties of delusions. The authors explicate the regulative causes of belief revision for rational agents and argue that delusions are unresponsive to these. They argue that delusions are (a) protected beliefs made unfalsifiable either in principle or because the agent refuses to admit anything as a potential falsifier; (b) the protected belief is not typically considered a "properly basic" belief; (c) the belief is not of the variety of protected scientific beliefs; (d) in response to an apparent falsification, the subject posits not a simple, testable explanation for the inconsistency but one that is more complicated, less testable, and provides no new corroborations; (e) the subject has a strong emotional attachment to the belief; and (f) the belief is typically supported by (or originates from) trivial occurrences that are interpreted by the subject as highly unusual, significant, having personal reference, or some combination of these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017b; hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) does not contain an enforceable standard regarding psychologists' role in either honoring or protecting the free speech of others, or ensuring that their own free speech is protected, including an important corollary of free speech, the protection of academic freedom. Illiberal acts illegitimately restrict civil liberties. We argue that the ethics of illiberal acts have not been adequately scrutinized in the Ethics Code. Psychologists require free speech to properly enact their roles as scientists as well as professionals who wish to advocate for their clients and students to enhance social justice. This article delineates criteria for what ought to be included in the Ethics Code, argues that ethical issues regarding the protection of free speech rights meet these criteria, and proposes language to be added to the Ethics Code. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The ethically proper response to problematic speech is more speech and not censorship. To the extent that Jackson (2022) and Smith (2022) advocate for all to be able to criticize all, for example, for unempowered undergraduates to criticize privileged White male professors or for anyone to criticize racist or hate speech, we are in agreement. The speech involved in criticism can be risky and hence ought to be protected by the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017). However, except in very circumscribed circumstances, to the extent that Jackson or Smith advocate for acts such as the suppression, censorship, or punishment of speech, we are in disagreement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Is the clinical psychologist best characterized as a scientist-practitioner? Or does the practice of science and psychotherapy involve metaphysics to such an extent that the clinical psychologist ought to be considered a metaphysician-scientist-practitioner? To answer these questions, the roles, if any, of metaphysics in science and psychotherapy are examined. This article investigates this question by examining the views of the logical positivists, Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos, and concludes that the practice of science and psychotherapy involves metaphysics in (a) problem choice, (b) research and therapy design, (c) observation statements, (d) resolving the Duhemian problem, and (e) modifying hypotheses to encompass anomalous results.