This document contains summaries of all the articles and documents that were literature for this course, as well as a few (very hard to get through) book chapters. It covers everything in detail while being concise.
Theory of Science | The Course
Pluto vs Homosexuality – Peter Zacher and Kenneth S. Kendler (1)
• We compare the removal of Pluto from the listing of planets to the removal of
homosexuality from the listing of mental disorders.
Introduction
• The controversies over psychiatric classification in the past 30 years have garnered
considerable attention. This article will not solve the problem of what counts as a
"legitimate" scientific approach.
• The article aims to draw comparisons between two different controversies, namely
whether Pluto is a planet and whether homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder.
• Pluto was predicted by Percival Lowell based on discrepancies between the observed
and predicted orbits for Uranus. Astronomers made a mistake when predicting the
orbit of Uranus, and Pluto was discovered by accident.
• In the late 19th century, there were active debates about whether homosexuality was a
vice, a medical condition, or a harmless variation in behavior. Homosexuality was
included in the first edition of the DSM despite the rejection of degeneration theory.
• People in both disciplines became committed to the classifications for a variety of
reasons, including respect for tradition and the role that the classification played in
ongoing research programs.
• This article discusses the issue of scientific authority and how it should be resolved if
a scientific community cannot agree on how to resolve a controversy. It also discusses
how voting can serve both ethical and epistemic ends in situations of uncertainty.
The decision on Pluto: Not a planet
• On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted to remove Pluto
from the official list of planets. This was because of the discovery of Eris, a larger
planet beyond Pluto that has an orbit inclined 45 degrees relative to Earth's plane.
• If Eris and Pluto were both classified as planets, several other bodies in the solar
system would also have to be included. Rather than calling all of these bodies planets,
they were classified as asteroids.
• The discovery of Eris suggested to some that the status of Ceres should be revisited.
However, a looser definition of planet that accepts both Eris and Ceres would also
swell the number of planets to over 20.
• Pluto was a problematic case even before the discovery of Eris, and the IAU could not
come to a consensus regarding its status.
• After the discovery of Eris, the chair of the Working Group forced a vote. Seven were
in favor of keeping Pluto a planet, seven opposed, and seven favored a compromise
that would make "planet" a superordinate category.
• The 2006 Prague conference had considerable drama, including last minute changes in
the proposal by a secretly formed Planet Definition Committee. Pluto, Eris and Ceres
were put into a new category: dwarf planets.
The decision on homosexuality: Not a psychiatric disorder
• The construct of homosexuality has immense sociocultural significance, and was
considered a perversion that was both immoral and illegal before the birth of modern
psychiatry.
1
, • The American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the
official list of mental disorders on December 15, 1973, after a series of protests.
• Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues found that homosexual activity among males is
surprisingly high, and that many homosexual relationships are long-term and
committed.
• Two additional considerations influenced psychiatrists to change their minds about
homosexuality'sclassification: the protestors' examples of social discrimination based
on sexual orientation and personal encounters with homosexuals.
• Robert Spitzer attended a secret meeting of gay psychiatrists and decided to help them.
However, the focus of the protestors shifted to the Nomenclature Committee and they
formed their own Ad Hoc Committee against the Deletion of Homosexuality.
• Spitzer concluded that homosexuality was different from other psychiatric disorders
because it was often accompanied by neither distress nor a general impairment in
social functioning.
Opposition after the decision
• After the vote, Alan Stern and Mark Sykes circulated a petition stating that they did
not agree with the new definition of a planet and would not use it.
• Planning is underway to establish an open and inclusive grass-roots process to resolve
the issue of planets in our solar system.
• The procedural complaint was not that the definition was decided by a vote, but that
less than 30% of the IAU's 9000 members were at the conference.
• The controversy over the new classification of planets continued at a 2008 Conference
titled The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process, but no consensus emerged.
• The decision on homosexuality was vilified by many psychiatrists as scientifically
unsound, harmful to legitimate patients, immoral, politically motivated and a
concession to the mob. Some conservative psychiatrists felt that not just the
profession, but also morality and civilization itself had been betrayed.
• After the vote of the Board of Trustees in 1973, the Ad Hoc Committee against the
Deletion of Homosexuality circulated a petition with 234 signatories.
• The protestors believed that a vote of the membership would reflect the scientific
consensus, whereas the Board's decision reflected political considerations.
• The politics surrounding the vote were tense. The Ad Hoc Committee defended its
claim that homosexuality was pathological.
• The vote of the membership was conducted by mail, and the decision of the Board was
upheld by 58% of the voting members.
Solving classification problems by proposing definitions
• In both astronomy and psychiatry, crisis proportions were reached and solutions were
proposed and voted on within a span of 12 months.
• Pluto and homosexuality decisions were crisis-driven, with psychiatrists agreeing on a
definition and applying it to cases, but having different opinions about the desirability
of variation in sexual orientation.
• Astronomers could have decided not to explicitly define a planet, because the
construct of "planet" is physically irrelevant to the scientific study of Pluto or Ceres.
• Although the biological basis of a predisposition for homosexuality is not altered by
its being classified as a psychiatric disorder, its psychological manifestation is.
• Planetary astronomers have fewer consequences than psychiatrists and psychologists if
they leave a classificatory dilemma unsettled, but they still have to think about the
impact classifications have on culture.
2
,Scientific Authority
• Both astronomy and psychiatry had advocates that claimed the final decision was not
supported by rigorous scientific evidence, and that the legitimate authority of
"science" had been usurped.
• Astronomers and psychiatrists disagreed about whether a planet can be defined in
terms of inherent properties or whether the role played by a body in a larger system is
relevant.
• When the evidence is inadequate, mature communities make decisions following
procedures that are formulated to be fair. These procedures can be seen as a history of
various research communities making competing claims, and those claims that have
survived the competitive process earn scientific authority.
• Hull and Longino argue that the social nature of science is necessary for the
objectivity of scientific authority.
• Although we claim that scientific authority belongs to communities, we do not seek to
reify scientific authority or treat it as a concrete entity. Those whose views do not
prevail may experience disappointment and charge that the authorities who made the
final decision betrayed scientific ideals.
• The critics in the Pluto and homosexuality controversies were upset that the wrong
communities had been ceded authority.
• Laudan [33] argues that conflicts between research traditions are a normal part of
science, but the stakes become higher when official classifications are being decided,
and compromises are typically required.
The role of experts
• Professional organizations wield political authority, and social structures help to
establish expertise. Expertise is identified with respect to past achievements, and
reputations are earned by proving oneself in the competitive process.
• In both astronomy and psychiatry, committee members should have knowledge and
experience with respect to the classification issues under consideration, but the kind of
knowledge they should possess was subject to debate.
• Problems are inevitable when decisions about scientific classifications are subject to
socially-enforced timelines. It would be better if empirical considerations were the
leading factors in any "vote", but this is probably impossible.
Conclusion
• Some readers may conclude that the presence of partisanship and politics in astronomy
does not justify partisanship and politics in psychiatric nosology.
• Even if psychiatry is to be considered an immature science, complicated dynamics can
arise in the development of psychiatric classifications as long as the current
classification does not satisfactorily account for all the data.
• When thorny classification problems occur, disciplines need to have a fair and
systematic way of choosing "experts" to whom authority is given. These experts need
to be self-critical and consider multiple and conflicting perspectives.
3
, Stephan Schleim chapter 1 (1)
• This book summarizes and discusses scientific research on drugs, and is not intended
to encourage or discourage any particular substance use.
• In the early afternoon, I am standing in the newly built lecture hall at the University of
Groningen, where I am teaching a course on Theory of Science. A woman is getting
angry because a delicatessen doesn't have capers, but a calm male voice tells her not to
get upset. A woman in an office is upset about her boss, and is about to quit. Her anger
turns into despair, and she starts crying, but the voice repeats its suggestion to take
Frauengold instead, and adds: "Then you will see the world objectively again." A
telling advertisement for the product Frauengold, containing alcohol and some herbs
as the major ingredients, is shown, emphasizing a housewife's activities keeping the
home clean and comforting her husband. The students laughed at the woman getting
so upset about capers, but then became silent and amazed. A new electronic payment
system has been installed in the pantry next to my office to prevent students'
unauthorized use of the service. The standard amount deposited on my personal smart
card is sufficient for 4,000 cups. The advertisement refers to coping with psychosocial
conflicts, such as anger, impulsivity, despair, or anxiety, which are associated with
disorders increasingly diagnosed in our time.
• The working hypothesis under which this book is written is inspired by the increase in
mental disorder diagnoses and psychopharmacological prescriptions over a few
decades, the debate on human enhancement, and the blurred boundary between mental
disorders and normalcy.
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller florijneburg. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.76. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
