Limits to Peers’ Judgements of Ethical Relations with Clients: Incommensurability in Mental Health
Title: Limits to Peers’ Judgements of Ethical Relations with Clients
Subtitle: Incommensurability in Mental Health
Subject Classification: Philosophy, Psychology, Counselling, Healthcare
BIC Classification: JM, MBDC, HP
BISAC Classification: PHI005000, PSY003000, MED050000
Binding: Hardback, pp.(to be confirmed)
Planned Publication date: April 2024
ISBN (printed book): 978-1-80441-280-0
ISBN (web pdf): 978-1-80441-281-7
For larger orders, or orders where you require an invoice, contact us email@example.com
Consideration of the moral and ethical consequences of competing scientific and social theories often proceeds on the assumption that such discourses are or ought to be rational. The concept of incommensurability, however, threatens this assumption.
Literature on the Incommensurability thesis consists mostly in explanation of the concept itself and the degree of damage it portends for the rationality of science. Most often this work is done via historical case studies. Exemplary is Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution.
Historical studies do sometimes provide us with great insights, but their worth is limited by the backward-looking nature of anecdotes and single case investigations. The current work looks toward new and prospective methods of investigation.
Through the lens of a novel and experimental approach to incommensurability the author asks, “What are the prospects for an inter-theoretic language in the social sciences?” In particular, there is a focus on the contentious claim by some that it is perfectly fine and even beneficial to have social, business or intimate relations with clients.
Author: Dr. Willow Angelette is Professor of Philosophy, Lone Star College, Texas, USA, and Executive Director of the American Philosophical Hermeneutics Foundation.
This title is currently being reviewed. Please check back for further updates in due course.