Mental health promotion and the positive concept of health: Navigating dilemmas.

A prevailing view holds that the main goal of mental health promotion is to maintain and improve positive mental health, which is not merely defined by the absence of mental disorders, but by the presence of certain abilities. There are, however, challenges associated with this view that this paper aims to identify and explore. We start by highlighting three requirements for an ethically and politically justified mental health promotion scheme: (i) using a positive concept of mental health that (ii) respects the neutrality principle while (iii) not being overly permissive.

Bias as an epistemic notion.

Once one abandons the ideal of value-free, impartial science, the question of how to distinguish biased from legitimately value-laden science arises. To approach this "new demarcation problem", I argue that one should distinguish different uses of "bias" in a first step: a narrow sense of bias as systematic deviation from the truth, and a wider sense that covers any kind of tendency impacting scientific reasoning. Secondly, the narrow sense exemplifies an ontological notion of bias, which understands bias in terms of a deviation from an impartial ideal outcome.

On illness, disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates.

The distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both employ these notions, yet disagree on whether to assign priority to 'disease' or 'illness'. I argue that this discussion suffers from implicit differences in the underlying interpretations: While for naturalists the distinction between 'disease' and 'illness' is one between a descriptive and a prescriptive notion, for normativists it is one between cause and effect.

The irreducibility of value-freedom to theory assessment.

The current ideal of value-freedom holds non-cognitive values to be illegitimate in theory appraisal but legitimate in earlier stages of the research process, for example, when affecting the selection of topics or the generation of hypotheses. Respective decisions are often considered as part of a context of discovery and as irrelevant for the justification and assessment of theories. I will argue that this premise of an epistemic independence of theory appraisal, though often taken for granted, is false.