The DSM-V is an ontology that’s cause neutral. That’s useful when you have many professionals who need a common language but which disagree about the causes of mental illnesses.
A depression that’s due to a head trauma is different from a depression because someone doesn’t deal well with a romantic relationship that’s ended.
When you want to actually treat depression it’s on the other hand very useful to be able to keep different types of depressions apart.
″ That’s useful when you have many professionals who need a common language but which disagree about the causes of mental illnesses. ”
Using the proposed framework, it means that the field lacks Foundational Understanding. Thus I wouldn’t feel comfortable calling the DSM an ontology, though there is i.e. the Mental Disease Ontology, which sometimes maps to DSM.
I do approve of the Mental Disease Ontology as a project of fellow bioinformaticians to replace the mess of the psychiatrists but to me the Mental Disease Ontology doesn’t look like it’s a solution.
When it comes to cancerophobia and AIDS phobia both of those terms seem to me like they point to symptoms and there might be different underlying mechanisms in different patients.
It’s also not clear to me why impulse control disorders are supposed to be no cognitive disorders.
Just a quick 2 cents: I think it’s possible to have really poor or not-useful ontologies. One could easily make a decent ontology of Greek Gods, for instance. However, if their Foundational Understanding wasn’t great, then that ontology won’t be that useful (as if they believed in Greek Gods).
In this case, I would classify the DSM as mainly a taxonomy (a kind of ontology), but I think many people would agree it could be improved. Much of this improvement would hopefully come through what is here called Foundational Understanding.
The DSM-V is an ontology that’s cause neutral. That’s useful when you have many professionals who need a common language but which disagree about the causes of mental illnesses.
A depression that’s due to a head trauma is different from a depression because someone doesn’t deal well with a romantic relationship that’s ended.
When you want to actually treat depression it’s on the other hand very useful to be able to keep different types of depressions apart.
″ That’s useful when you have many professionals who need a common language but which disagree about the causes of mental illnesses. ”
Using the proposed framework, it means that the field lacks Foundational Understanding. Thus I wouldn’t feel comfortable calling the DSM an ontology, though there is i.e. the Mental Disease Ontology, which sometimes maps to DSM.
I do approve of the Mental Disease Ontology as a project of fellow bioinformaticians to replace the mess of the psychiatrists but to me the Mental Disease Ontology doesn’t look like it’s a solution.
When it comes to cancerophobia and AIDS phobia both of those terms seem to me like they point to symptoms and there might be different underlying mechanisms in different patients.
It’s also not clear to me why impulse control disorders are supposed to be no cognitive disorders.
Just a quick 2 cents: I think it’s possible to have really poor or not-useful ontologies. One could easily make a decent ontology of Greek Gods, for instance. However, if their Foundational Understanding wasn’t great, then that ontology won’t be that useful (as if they believed in Greek Gods).
In this case, I would classify the DSM as mainly a taxonomy (a kind of ontology), but I think many people would agree it could be improved. Much of this improvement would hopefully come through what is here called Foundational Understanding.