Historians and sociologists of psychiatry often claim that psychiatric diagnoses are discontinuous. That is, a particular diagnoses will be described in one way in one era and described quite differently in a different era. Historians and sociologists often draw epistemic consequences from such discontinuities, claiming that truth is pluralistic, provisional and historicised. These arguments do not readily fit in with how analytical philosophers of science approach scientific realism. I show how the pessimistic meta induction does not capture the point which historians and sociologists are making but scientific perspectivism seems to capture their point much better. I then highlight conceptual innovations which scientific perspectivists add. They demarcate between truth and objective reality, they specify which type of truth they endorse and they put down constraints on possible truths. This blocks an anything goes relativism which historians and sociologists can be in danger of falling into. I highlight my argument by discussing a discontinuous episode in the history of autism. I discuss three aspects of this discontinuity and show how scientific perspectivism can portray each aspect as non-trivially true. My argument shows that we can be scientific realists about autism even if we can formulate notions of autism in quite different ways.

中文翻译：

---

科学透视论和精神病学诊断：尊重历史并限制相对论

精神病学的历史学家和社会学家经常声称，精神病学诊断是不连续的。即，特定诊断将在一个时代中以一种方式描述，而在不同时代中将以完全不同的方式描述。历史学家和社会学家经常从这种不连续性中得出认识论的后果，声称真理是多元的，暂时的和历史性的。这些论点并不容易与科学的分析哲学家如何对待科学现实主义相适应。我展示了悲观的元归纳法如何无法抓住历史学家和社会学家所提出的观点，而科学的视角论似乎可以更好地抓住他们的观点。然后，我重点介绍科学透视学家添加的概念创新。他们在真理与客观现实之间划定界限，他们指定认可哪种类型的真理，并对可能的真理施加限制。这阻碍了相对论的一切发展，历史学家和社会学家可能陷入这种相对主义之中。我通过讨论自闭症历史中的不连续发作来突出我的观点。我讨论了这种不连续性的三个方面，并展示了科学的视角论如何将每个方面描绘成非平凡的真实。我的论据表明，即使我们可以以完全不同的方式来表达自闭症的概念，我们也可以成为自闭症的科学现实主义者。我讨论了这种不连续性的三个方面，并展示了科学的视角论如何将每个方面描绘为非平凡的真实。我的论据表明，即使我们可以以完全不同的方式来表达自闭症的概念，我们也可以成为自闭症的科学现实主义者。我讨论了这种不连续性的三个方面，并展示了科学的视角论如何将每个方面描绘为非平凡的真实。我的论据表明，即使我们可以以完全不同的方式来表达自闭症的概念，我们也可以成为自闭症的科学现实主义者。