Revisiting Maher’s One-Factor Theory of Delusion, Again

Ema Sullivan-Bissett; Paul Noordhof

doi:10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6

Revisiting Maher’s One-Factor Theory of Delusion, Again

Ema Sullivan-Bissett, Paul Noordhof

Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Chenwei Nie ([22]) argues against a Maherian one-factor approach to explaining delusion. We argue that his objections fail. They are largely based on a mistaken understanding of the approach (as committed to the claim that anomalous experience is sufficient for delusion). Where they are not so based, they instead rest on misinterpretation of recent defences of the position, and an underestimation of the resources available to the one-factor theory.

Original language	English
Article number	17
Number of pages	8
Journal	Neuroethics
Volume	17
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6
Publication status	Published - 3 Apr 2024

Bibliographical note

Funding:
Arts and Humanities Research Council (Deluded by Experience, grant no. AH/T013486/1).

Keywords

Delusion
anomalous experience
one-factor
rationality
two-factor

Access to Document

10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

SullivanBissettE2024RevisitingFinal published version, 468 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

Deluded by Experience
Sullivan-Bissett, E.
Arts and Humanities Research Council
1/01/21 → 31/07/24
Project: Research Councils

Cite this

@article{895d59ea32534e90be4e74d7a20fe1d6,

title = "Revisiting Maher{\textquoteright}s One-Factor Theory of Delusion, Again",

abstract = "Chenwei Nie ([22]) argues against a Maherian one-factor approach to explaining delusion. We argue that his objections fail. They are largely based on a mistaken understanding of the approach (as committed to the claim that anomalous experience is sufficient for delusion). Where they are not so based, they instead rest on misinterpretation of recent defences of the position, and an underestimation of the resources available to the one-factor theory.",

keywords = "Delusion, anomalous experience, one-factor, rationality, two-factor",

author = "Ema Sullivan-Bissett and Paul Noordhof",

note = "Funding: Arts and Humanities Research Council (Deluded by Experience, grant no. AH/T013486/1).",

year = "2024",

month = apr,

day = "3",

doi = "10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

journal = "Neuroethics",

issn = "1874-5490",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revisiting Maher’s One-Factor Theory of Delusion, Again

AU - Sullivan-Bissett, Ema

AU - Noordhof, Paul

N1 - Funding: Arts and Humanities Research Council (Deluded by Experience, grant no. AH/T013486/1).

PY - 2024/4/3

Y1 - 2024/4/3

N2 - Chenwei Nie ([22]) argues against a Maherian one-factor approach to explaining delusion. We argue that his objections fail. They are largely based on a mistaken understanding of the approach (as committed to the claim that anomalous experience is sufficient for delusion). Where they are not so based, they instead rest on misinterpretation of recent defences of the position, and an underestimation of the resources available to the one-factor theory.

AB - Chenwei Nie ([22]) argues against a Maherian one-factor approach to explaining delusion. We argue that his objections fail. They are largely based on a mistaken understanding of the approach (as committed to the claim that anomalous experience is sufficient for delusion). Where they are not so based, they instead rest on misinterpretation of recent defences of the position, and an underestimation of the resources available to the one-factor theory.

KW - Delusion

KW - anomalous experience

KW - one-factor

KW - rationality

KW - two-factor

U2 - 10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6

DO - 10.1007/s12152-024-09553-6

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 1874-5490

VL - 17

JO - Neuroethics

JF - Neuroethics

IS - 1

M1 - 17

ER -

Revisiting Maher’s One-Factor Theory of Delusion, Again

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

Deluded by Experience

Cite this