The discussion about the training of psychiatrists in the Netherlands could be hindered by two factors.
First, in the debate on the obligatory neurological term argumentations of principle run the risk of getting lost under the stress of practical circumstances. An argumentation of principle is for example the symbolic meaning of this term. That is to say the author thinks that the importance of organic pathogenesis in psychiatric conditions is relevant to the necessity of a neurological term. Recent progress in psychiatric research accentuate this importance. Cancelling of the existing obligatory neurological term thus would not be in keeping with modern psychiatric science.
The second factor that hinders the discussion (in depth assuredly) consists of the many controversies that keep us psychiatrists divided. In common we have problem area, language and science. Mapping and identification of a problem ('continuous diagnostics') asks in the training situation for thinking aloud. Attention for language and linguistic pitfalls follows then automatically. Finally, it is likely that one's view of science determines one's view of obtaining knowledge. For instance, if one sees science as a mode of researching rather than as a factory of knowledge, in training one will more emphasize the critically handling than the possessing of knowledge.