English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this rejoinder I respond separately to Daniel FishmanâA‚â‚¬A‚â„¢s and Ronald B. MillerâA‚â‚¬A‚â„¢s respective arguments regarding my views about objectivity and causality, owing to the fact that Fishman finds a place for âA‚â‚¬A‚A“objectivityâA‚â‚¬A‚? and âA‚â‚¬A‚A“causalityâA‚â‚¬A‚? within his theoretical model whereas Miller does not. First, I question the basis for FishmanâA‚â‚¬A‚â„¢s conclusion that coherence and pragmatic models are objectivist according to my definition of an objectivist epistemology. I also challenge his claim to have included âA‚â‚¬A‚A“causal mechanismsâA‚â‚¬A‚? in his pragmatic system of therapy, since he gives them no ontological status other than that of âA‚â‚¬A‚A“conceptual tools.âA‚â‚¬A‚? Second, I challenge MillerâA‚â‚¬A‚â„¢s claim that clinical knowledge cannot be objective knowledge because it is moral knowledge in which what one observes is allegedly determined by oneâA‚â‚¬A‚â„¢s moral perspective. I also question his insistence that causal explanation in the physical world so departs from causal explanation in the human world that the word âA‚â‚¬A‚A“causeâA‚â‚¬A‚? cannot be used in the latter without causing confusion. But if that is so, then the moral accountability and repair that Miller seeks in clinical practice may be hard to obtain.

Round 3: Regarding Objectivity and Causality -- A Rejoinder to Fishman and Miller