An addition to Stephen's list of quotes: Wolfgang Köhler, gestalt psychologist and ethologist:
"I now turn to psychoanalysis, the source of more, and of darker, smog than any other doctrine has produced." (Quoted in Percival Bailey, *Sigmund the Unserene: A Tragedy in Three Acts*, 1965) And for Frederick Crews taking on all comers on psychoanalysis in a remarkable tour de force: F. Crews (ed), *The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute*, A New York Review book, 1995. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------ Re: [tips] Freud and intellectuals sblack Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:20:05 -0700 > Joan Warmbold asks: > >Has there ever been a non-psychologist scholar who > >has challenged Freud's theories? > Allen E. replied: > As is implied in Joan's question, there have been many eminent > psychologists who have challenged psychoanalysis from its inception As for non-psychologists, let's not forget the tenacious Frederick Crews, professor of English at the University of California (just cited by Allen in his previous post), for his devastating critiques of psychoanalytic nonsense (including, for starters, the inspired mockery in "The Pooh Perplex"). Or the Nobel-prize winning zoologist and immunologist Peter Medawar, who said (in "Pluto's Republic", 1982): "There is some truth in psychoanalysis, as there is in mesmerism and phrenology, but considered in its entirety, psychoanalysis won't do. It is an end-product, like a dinosaur or a Zeppelin; no better theory can ever be constructed on its ruins, which will remain as one of the saddest and strangest of all landmarks in the history of 20th century thought." (Amen, I say). Or the great philosopher of science Karl Popper, whose assessment was: "[Freud's theory] although posing as science, had in fact more in common with primitive myth than with science... it resembled astrology rather than astronomy"; (Popper (1965). Conjectures and Refutations (2nd ed.)). Or the neurologist Percival Bailey, who observed in an essay titled "Sigmund Freud: Scientific Period" (an oxymoron, perhaps): "If you will accept the term science in the sense of Naturwissenschaft, or _natural_ science, Freud didn't do any more "natural scientific" research after 1897 [before "The Interpretation of Dreams"]. He ended there. After that what he did was speculate. He never tried to subject any of his ideas to experimental tests, and furthermore, he was quite hostile to the suggestion...So I stopped at 1897 because that was the last time that he wrote a scientific paper in the sense of Naturwissenschaft". (Bailey, 1964). (quotes all recycled from long-forgotten posts of mine to TIPS). Stephen --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5658 or send a blank email to leave-5658-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
