Lost at Sea: A New Route to Metaphysical Skepticism

Global metaphysical skepticism is the view that we have no knowledge of any substantive metaphysical thesis. Various reasons have been provided in support of global metaphysical skepticism. I provide a new one. The reason, very roughly, is this. Metaphysical theses come together as packages. Such packages are very different from each other. Because the packages are so different, we cannot know of any one of the packages that it isn't true. And because we cannot know of any one of them that it isn't true, we cannot know any substantive metaphysical thesis at all. My paper makes this argument much more precise and defends each of the premises in detail.     

Continuity Between DSM–5 Section II and III Personality Disorders in a Dutch Clinical Sample

The goal of this study was to evaluate the continuity across the Section II personality disorders (PDs) and the proposed Section III model of PDs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). More specifically, we analyzed association between the DSM–5 Section III pathological trait facets and Section II PDs among 110 Dutch adults (M age = 35.8 years, range = 19–60 years) receiving mental health care. We administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis II Disorders to all participants. Participants also completed the self-report Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5) as a measure of pathological trait facets. The distributions underlying the dependent variable were modeled as criterion counts, using negative binomial regression. The results provided some support for the validity of the PID–5 and the DSM–5 Section III Alternative Model, although analyses did not show a perfect match. Both at the trait level and the domain level, analyses showed mixed evidence of significant relationships between the PID–5 trait facets and domains with the traditional DSM–IV PDs.