Those are the two main models in clinical psychology (they are models of how clinical psychologists should be trained). They are the main ones because the models result in two very different qualifications. Other qualifications aren't qualifications in clinical psychology.

There are many other conflicts between how we are best to treat people with mental disorder (gene therapy, neurological intervention by medication / psychosurgery, talk therapy, sociological intervention etc).

And there are many other conflicts between how we are best to conceive of mental disorder (genetic, neurological, psychological, social etc).

The trouble is (I think) that people are trained in one particular perspective and then their professional identity depends on that particular perspective being legitimate. There is a lot of professional rivalry over such things as which perspective is 'right' (has something to do with who the health insurers should fund for treating).

I like philosophy because it allows me to take a step back from all that... I'm not wedded to psychology or education or psychiatry or sociology or genetics or whatever having some privaledged grip on the conceptualisation and treatment of mental disorder. My professional identity remains intact whether some are illegitimate and others are legitamite, or whether all are legitimate or whether all are illegitimate... Doesn't make a damn to me (so I can try and figure out from my relatively detached place how the hell things seem to be).

The only thing I have to contend with is other reasons for prejudice that I might have (e.g., due to my experiences resulting in me making unwarranted generalizations and so on)...