Modellen van ‘integratie’ in de psychologie en psychiatrie (III): de filosofie van wetenschap en praktijk.

G. Glas

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

176 Downloads (Pure)


This is the last of three articles on the relationship between science, religion, and professional practice in psychology and psychiatry. The first article highlighted the importance of the distinction between four types of knowledge. In the second article the scope was broadened and amounted to an analysis of the normative structure of professional practices. I showed the relevance of this analysis by investigating its meaning for the notion of restoration, along the dimensions of structure and direction. The I-self relationship played an important role in the conceptualization of the relationship between these two dimensions. In this article I will apply the notion of (normative) practice to science andphilosophy. After a discussion of the views on integration of Nancey Murphy and Ian Barbour (both Christian philosophers) I will briefly introduce some insights of the Dutch (Christian) philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, who emphasized the primacy of everyday knowledge and experience. In the latter part of the article I will discuss and reject constructivist objections to both the idea of the primacy of everyday knowledge and the normative practice model.
Original languageDutch
Pages (from-to)178-193
JournalPsyche en Geloof
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Bibliographical note

Key Words: Science, Religion, Christian Philosophy,
Everyday Knowledge, Constructivism.

Cite this