Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Techne and Episteme: Challenges for a Fruitful Translation Between Neuroscience and Psychiatry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Psychiatry and Neuroscience Update

  • 1079 Accesses

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed a surge of confidence in the benefits of applying methods of neuroscience to psychiatric research as indicated, for instance, by the Research Domain Criteria framework proposed by the NIMH. However, the initial excitement of this prospective interdisciplinary partnership has been tempered by a number of setbacks, such as increasing doubts about the reliability of neuroimaging research. In this chapter we propose that many of these challenges can be traced to problems of scientific practice—techne—that have been especially rampant in the neuroscience domain and its application to psychiatry. Additionally, following the work of G.E. Berrios on the specificity of psychiatric objects, we propose that translational neuroscience will be successful only when it embraces a more complete epistemological model of mental symptoms. Finally, we suggest that neuroscience needs to adopt a more critical stance with respect to the image of the brain as a computer and in general should be more critically aware of the influence of such models when attempting translational research. In the last two parts of the chapter, we discuss the relationships between these problems and propose some general guidelines for creating a more productive partnership between neuroscience and psychiatry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. GBD 2015 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388:1603–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31460-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wykes T, Belli SR, Lewis SW, Haro JM, Obradors-Tarragó C. Roadmap for mental health and well-being research in Europe. 2015. http://www.roamermh.org/files/DocRoamer_Roadmap2015_FINALISSIMA_050615.pdf.

  3. Frances A. RDoC is necessary, but very oversold. World Psychiatry. 2014;13:47–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Insel T. Transforming diagnosis. NIMH Dir Blog. 2013:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/496416a.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuthbert BN. The RDoC framework: facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry. 2014;13:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20087.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Caldieraro MA. The future of psychiatric research. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2016;38:185–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2016-0046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Corvin A, Sullivan PF. What next in schizophrenia genetics for the psychiatric genomics consortium? Schizophr Bull. 2016;42:538–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Donovan MC. What have we learned from the psychiatric genomics consortium. World Psychiatry. 2015;14:291–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lilienfeld SO. The research domain criteria (RDoC): an analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. Behav Res Ther. 2014;62:129–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iacono WG, Vaidyanathan U, Vrieze SI, Malone SM. Knowns and unknowns for psychophysiological endophenotypes: integration and response to commentaries. Psychophysiology. 2014;51:1339–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Haar S, Berman S, Behrmann M, Dinstein I. Anatomical abnormalities in autism? Cereb Cortex. 2014:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Riddle K, Cascio CJ, Woodward ND. Brain structure in autism: a voxel-based morphometry analysis of the Autism Brain Imaging Database Exchange (ABIDE). Brain Imaging Behav. 2016:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9534-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sprooten E, Rasgon A, Goodman M, Carlin A, Leibu E, Lee WH, et al. Addressing reverse inference in psychiatric neuroimaging: meta-analyses of task-related brain activation in common mental disorders. Hum Brain Mapp. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutsson H. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016:201602413. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602413113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Silver M, Montana G, Nichols TE. False positives in neuroimaging genetics using voxel-based morphometry data. NeuroImage. 2011;54:992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Robins E, Guze SB. Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1970;126:983–7. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.126.7.983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zachar P, St. Stoyanov D, Aragona M, Jablensky A, editors. Alternative perspectives on psychiatric validation: DSM, ICD, RDoC, and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zachar P, Jablensky A. The concept of validation in psychiatry and psychology. In: Zachar P, St. Stoyanov D, Aragona M, Jablensky A, editors. Altern. Perspect. Psychiatr. Valid. DSM, ICD, RDoC beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Parry R. Episteme and techne. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/.

  20. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:0696–701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:365–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fletcher PC, Grafton ST. Repeat after me: replication in clinical neuroimaging is critical. NeuroImage Clin. 2013;2:247–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2013.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Poldrack RA, Baker CI, Durnez J, Gorgolewski KJ, Matthews PM, Munafò MR, et al. Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie N, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Publ Gr. 2017;1:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carp J. On the plurality of (methodological) worlds: estimating the analytic flexibility of fMRI experiments. Front Neurosci. 2012;6:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:1359–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Szucs D, Ioannidis JPA. Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biol. 2017;15:e2000797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fiedler K. Voodoo correlations are everywhere – not only in neuroscience. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6:163–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cuijpers P, Cristea IA. How to prove that your therapy is effective, even when it is not: a guideline. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796015000864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. 2012;23:524–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parnas J. The RDoC program: psychiatry without psyche? World Psychiatry. 2014;13:46–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Phillips MR. Will RDoC hasten the decline of America’s global leadership role in mental health? World Psychiatry. 2014;13:40–1. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20098.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Berrios GE. Descriptive psychopathology: conceptual and historical aspects. Psychol Med. 1984;14:303–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Berrios GE. Formation and meaning of mental symptoms: history and epistemology. Dialogues Philos Ment Neurosci. 2013;6:39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Markova IS, Berrios GE. Research in psychiatry: concepts and conceptual analysis. Psychopathology. 2016;49:188–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000447596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marková IS, Berrios GE, Berrios E. Epistemology of psychiatry. Psychopathology. 2012;45:220–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marková IS, Berrios GE. Neuroimaging in psychiatry: epistemological considerations. In: Zachar P, St. Stoyanov D, Aragona M, Jablensky A, editors. Altern. Perspect. Psychiatr. Valid. DSM, ICD, RDoC beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 112–27.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Barrett NF, Güell F, Murillo JI. Los límites de la comprensión computacional del cerebro. Cuenta Y Razón. 2015;34:71–6.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Daugman JG. Brain metaphor and brain theory. In: Schwartz EL, editor. Comput. Neurosci. Massachusetts: The MIT press; 1990. p. 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pylyshyn ZW. Computation and cognition: issues in the foundations of cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci. 1980;3:111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00002053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Newell A. Are there alternatives? In: Sieg W, editor. Act. reflecting interdiscip. turn philos. Kluwer: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Van Gelder T. What might cognition be, if not computation? J Philos. 1995;92(7):345–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Marcus G. Face it, your brain is a computer. New York Times. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Piccinini G, Bahar S. Neural computation and the computational theory of cognition. Cogn Sci. 2013;37:453–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gardner H. The mind’s new science: a history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Putnam H. The mental life of some machines. In: Castaneda H-N, editor. Intentionality, minds, percept. Detroit: Wayne Stat, Wayne State University Press; 1967. p. 177–200.

    Google Scholar 

  47. McCulloch WS, Pitts W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biol. 1943;5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02478259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. Receptive fields of single neurones in the cat’s striate cortex. J Physiol. 1959;148:574–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Marr D. Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fodor JA. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Churchland PS, Koch C, Sejnowski TJ. What is computational neuroscience. In: Schwartz E, editor. Comput. neurosci. Massachusetts: The MIT press; 1990. p. 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Churchland PS, Sejnowski TJ. The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Edelman GM. Bright air, brillian fire: on the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Book; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Freeman WJ. Nonlinear neurodynamics and intentionality. J Mind Behav. 1997;18:291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bruner J. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. NJ: Lawrence E. Hillsdale; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Dreyfus HL. What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Brooks R. Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell. 1991;47:139–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Beer R. Intelligence as adaptive behavior: an experiment in computational neuroethology. Boston: Academic Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch EH, Thompson E. The embodied mind, vol. 6. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press; 1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0149.1965.tb01386.x.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Kelso JAS. Dynamic patterns. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Varela F, Lachaux J-P, Rodriguez E, Martinerie J. The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nat Neurosci Rev. 2001;2:229–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Bressler SL, Kelso JAS. Cortical coordination dynamics and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001;5:26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cosmelli D, Lachaux J-P, Thompson E. Neurodynamical approaches to consciousness. In: Zelazo PD, Moscovitch M, Thompson E, editors. Cambridge Handb. Conscious. Cambridge, Cambridge: 2007, p. 731–52.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Breakspear M, McIntosh AR. Networks, noise, and models: reconceptualizing the brain as a complex, distributed system. NeuroImage. 2011;58:293–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sporns O. Networks of the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  67. McIntosh AR. Towards a network theory of cognition. Neural Netw. 2000;13:861–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. McIntosh AR. Contexts and catalysts: a resolution of the localization and integration of function in the brain. Neuroinformatics. 2004;4:175–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Anderson ML. After phrenology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Moreno A, Ruiz-Mirazo K, Barandiaran X. The impact of the paradigm of complexity on the foundational frameworks of biology and cognitive science. In: Hooker C, editor. Philos. complex syst. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011. p. 311–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  71. Hooker C, editor. Philosophy of complex systems. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Weber MM, Berrios GE, Engstrom EJ. Psychiatry and neuroscience – history. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;106:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52002-9.00001-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kaelin WG Jr. Publish houses of brick, not mansions of straw. Nature. 2017;545:387. https://doi.org/10.1038/545387a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. St. Stoyanov D, Borgwardt S, Varga S. Translational validity across neuroscience and psychiatry. In: Zachar P, St. Stoyanov D, Aragona M, Jablensky A, editors. Altern. Perspect. Psychiatr. Valid. DSM, ICD, RDoC beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 128–45.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Goñi J, Arrondo G, Sepulcre J, Martincorena I, Vélez De Mendizábal N, Corominas-Murtra B, et al. The semantic organization of the animal category: evidence from semantic verbal fluency and network theory. Cogn Process. 2011;12:183–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-010-0372-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Güell F, Arrondo G, de Castro-Manglano P, Bernacer J, Murillo JI. Dialogues between philosophy and psychiatry: the case of dissociative identity disorder. In: Gargiulo PA, Mesones-Arroyo HL, editors. Psychiatry neurosci. updat. vol II a transl. approach. Springer International Publishing; 2017. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53126-7.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Varela, Thompson, Rosch. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Thompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Pr; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Stewart J, Gapenne O, Di Paolo E, editors. Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mind-Brain Group, Institute for Culture and Society (ICS), University of Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Gonzalo Arrondo, Nathaniel F. Barrett, Francisco Güell, Javier Bernacer & José I. Murillo

  2. Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

    Gonzalo Arrondo & Javier Bernacer

  3. Department of Philosophy, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    José I. Murillo

Authors
  1. Gonzalo Arrondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathaniel F. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Güell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Javier Bernacer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José I. Murillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José I. Murillo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cathedra of Psychopathology, Catholic University of Argentina, Mendoza, Argentina

    Pascual Ángel Gargiulo

  2. Laboratory of Neurosciences and Experimental Psychology, Area of Pharmacology, Department of Pathology, National University of Cuyo, Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET), Mendoza, Argentina

    Humberto Luis Mesones Arroyo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arrondo, G., Barrett, N.F., Güell, F., Bernacer, J., Murillo, J.I. (2019). Techne and Episteme: Challenges for a Fruitful Translation Between Neuroscience and Psychiatry. In: Gargiulo, P., Mesones Arroyo, H. (eds) Psychiatry and Neuroscience Update . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95359-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95360-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation