On 26 October Aubyn wrote [snip]: > Thanks to both Steven and Allen for their response to my rather teasing > post� My intent was just to point out the perhaps obvious irony in citing > Sulloway to criticize Freud for intellectual sins when he himself is > currently defending himself from similar charges. I don�t think that > Sulloway�s sins (if such they be) invalidates his criticism of Freud > � anymore than I think that Freud�s own sins necessarily invalidate > everything else he ever wrote. > > I do think that once a scholar has been found to have formally published > glaring errors or willful misrepresentations of fact, we are justified in > losing confidence in his work. We are likely to be more skeptical of > other assertions he makes, and less likely to cite him authoritatively > in support of assertions of our own.
Aubyn wrote: "I do think that once a scholar has been found to have formally published glaring errors or willful misrepresentations of fact, we are justified in losing confidence in his work. We are likely to be more skeptical of other assertions he makes, and less likely to cite him authoratively in support of assertions of our own." This last sentence is obviously addressed to me, as I am the person who provided the quotation of Sulloway's which he reproduced. I have already explained (26 October) in some detail why I was justified in doing so, in spite of my recognition of Sulloway's previous lapse from scholarly integrity in relation to his writings on Freud. In other words, I have already fully addressed this point of Aubyn's in the very posting to which he is responding: After I'd spelled out my reservations about Sulloway, as well as a reference to the many published writings that supported the conclusion he had belatedly arrived at as expressed in the said quotation, I wrote: > Knowing all this, why did I choose to post on TIPS the quotation of > Sulloway's that Aubyn reproduces? Quite simply, because it is fully > justified on the basis of the material contained in the essay from which > it is taken, not to mention that further evidence for its validity is > contained in writings that Sulloway did not cite, and that since then > considerably more evidence has been published which demonstrates that > Sulloway's verdict is solidly based. I could have added that I chose to quote it because it sums up the basis of case against Freud's theoretical constructs admirably succinctly. Aubyn also wrote: > What I think I have learned from my exchange with Allen is that he views > just about any use or acceptance of Freudian psychology as �extraordinary > subservience towards Freud�; I suppose the continuing presence of bits > and pieces of psychoanalytic theory embedded in the academic canon > of psychology can be legitimately debated, but I think it is a little > misleading to characterize this Freudian presence on the margins of > psychology as �subservience�. This is a complete misunderstanding of my position, in every detail of the above paragraph. Since I have never suggested that just about any use or acceptance of Freudian psychology indicates an extraordinary subservience towards Freud, or anything like it, I won't bother to answer it directly. But I'll include a fuller exposition on Aubyn's misapprehensions about what I wrote in my 26 October posting in my next message. Allen Esterson ------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:07:39 -0700 Author: "Aubyn Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Sulloway and Freud > Aubyn writes� > Thanks to both Steven and Allen for their response to my rather teasing > post. I have appreciated Steve�s contributions on Sulloway as much as > Allen�s on Freud, though I am probably not as strong a critic as either > of them. My intent was just to point out the perhaps obvious irony in > citing Sulloway to criticize Freud for intellectual sins when he > himself is currently defending himself from similar charges. I don�t > think that Sulloway�s sins (if such they be) invalidates his criticism > of Freud � anymore than I think that Freud�s own sins necessarily > invalidate everything else he ever wrote. > > I do think that once a scholar has been found to have formally published > glaring errors or willful misrepresentations of fact, we are justified in > losing confidence in his work. We are likely to be more skeptical > of other assertions he makes, and less likely to cite him > authoritatively in support of assertions of our own. I think this > indeed is the fate that has largely befallen Freud, and perhaps > Sulloway as well. > > In his response, Allen does include a passage that captures the basis > for my original inquiry to him about his postings to this list on Freud. > Allen wrote: > > �This leads on naturally to some observations in regard to Sulloway's > book on Freud that are worth making for what they reveal about the... > extraordinary subservience towards Freud that prevailed throughout > most of the second half of the twentieth century, especially in the > United States (and to some extent still lingers on today in much of > the media)� > > This is where I disagree with Allen � I just have not seen this > �extraordinary subservience towards Freud� in academic psychology in the > last 50 yeas. I suppose the media may have been more credulous of > Freud for much of the 20th century, but in the last 10 or 15 years I > doubt even this assertion can really be supported � most stories I > read about Freud in the media these days are moderately to strongly > critical. > > What I think I have learned from my exchange with Allen is that he views > just about any use or acceptance of Freudian psychology as �extraordinary > subservience towards Freud�; I suppose the continuing presence of > bits and pieces of psychoanalytic theory embedded in the academic > canon of psychology can be legitimately debated, but I think it is > a little misleading to characterize this Freudian presence on the > margins of psychology as �subservience�. > > **************************************************** > Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > Chair, Behavioral Science Department > Pacific Union College > Angwin, CA 94508 > > Office: 707-965-6536 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
