Stephen wrote [snip]: > Interestingly, an early critic of Freud, Percival Bailey, did > conclude that Freud was a scientist, but briefly. He gave a > conference presentation titled "Sigmund Freud: Scientific Period > (1873-1897). In answer to a question why he stopped so early in > Freud's career, he replied: > > "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. 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).
If we're going to change the question to "When did Freud cease to be a scientist?", another vote for 1897 comes from Clark Glymour. He writes in relation to the debacle of Freud's loss of faith in his self-proclaimed seduction theory "solution" for the aetiology of hysteria in 1897: "In public he continued to defend his psychoanalytic methods; in private, we know from his correspondence with Fliess, he was consumed with misgivings. In print, he continued to claim as he had in *Studies on Hysteria* that his interventions, suggestions, and outright demands in therapy could have no contaminating effect on psychoanalytic conclusions. In letters he showed that he had every reason to abandon this smug conviction. Moreover, nothing in Freud's publications or letters from the period suggests that he was enjoying any considerable success as a therapist. Rather the reverse. "Faced with the evidence that the methods on which almost all of his work relied were in fact unreliable, Freud had many scientifically honorable courses of action available to him. He could have published his doubts and continued to use the same methods, reporting his results in company with caveats. He could have published his doubts and abandoned the subject. He could have attempted experimental inquiries into the effects of suggestion in his therapeutic sessions. He did none of these things, or others one might conceive. Instead he published The Interpretation of Dreams to justify by rhetorical devices the very methods he had every reason to distrust." C. Glymour, "The Theory of Your Dreams", p. 70. In R. S. Cohen and L. Lauden (eds.), *Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis* (1983), 57-71. It's not as if the deficiencies in Freud's clinical methodology highlighted above were not pointed out by his more insightful contemporaries, as I showed in a recent posting on this topic. The same applies to his associative technique. In a 1920 footnote to *The Psychopathology of Everyday Life* Freud cites an experimental test of this technique by Rudolf Schneider, who demonstrated that associations to numbers presented arbitrarily to experimental subjects occurred in a fashion indistinguishable from associations to numbers arising spontaneously in their minds; in other words, an analyst can *always* find supposedly 'significant' associations to any number (or word) arising in the course of an analysis. Freud's obfuscatory response simply begs the question, and he concludes by saying that in analytic practice "we proceed on the presupposition that [patients' associations are meaningfully determined] and that in the majority of instances use can be made of it." He adds: "A critical examination of the problem and with it a justification of the psychoanalytic technique of association lie outside the scope of this book" � a strange contention, given that virtually the whole of the book is premised on that very technique! (Freud, 1901 [1920], SE 6, p. 250-251, Footnote added 1920; see Esterson, 1993, pp. 160-161.) Allen Esterson --------------------------------- >Fri, 13 May 2005 11:12:04 -0500 >Author: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Was Freud a scientist? > I know I'm late with this entry, but I can't resist going on record > with my opinions on this interesting topic. Also, I'm looking forward > to the opportunity to once again crush others to dust rather than > engaging in discussion. Get out that vacuum cleaner! > > To no one's surprise, I vote in the negative. While it's true that > science is a modern concept and none of us can fully define it to > anyone else's satisfaction, there are certain criteria for which > there is more-or-less agreement. The more of these that are > fulfilled, the more certain we are that the person really functions > as a scientist. These include such things as empirical investigation > and systematic collection of data (with safeguards against bias), > generation of testable predictions and falsifiability, the > willingness to accept that one can be wrong based on experimental > results, the incorporation of the advances of other scientists in > one's work, the demonstration that the theory which is generated > produces results of long-lasting and real value. Freud fails > (miserably) on all of these. So I can say with confidence that I > know scientists, and Sigmund Freud was no scientist. What he produced > were fairy tales, X-rated and unsuited for children, but fairy tales > nevertheless. > > Interestingly, an early critic of Freud, Percival Bailey, did > conclude that Freud was a scientist, but briefly. He gave a > conference presentation titled "Sigmund Freud: Scientific Period > (1873-1897). In answer to a question why he stopped so early in > Freud's career, he replied: > > "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. 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). > > And while citing authorities on the matter, I have an unassailable > source on the question, the greatest authority on Freud that ever > lived. I speak not of Peter Gay, Frank Sulloway, Frederick Crews, > Frank Cioffi, or even Allen Esterson. I speak of...the great man > himself, who said, in a rare moment of honesty: > > "You often estimate me too highly. For I am actually not at all a man > of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. I am > by temperament nothing but a conquistador--an adventurer, if you want > it translated" > > (Freud, letter to Wilhelm Fliess Feb 1, 1900--and I thank A. Esterson > for locating the source in his TIPS post of Jan 28/05). > > I also agree that the Rosenzweig-Freud correspondence is most > revealing of Freud's attitude to science. He slaps the eager young > Rosenzweig down for suggesting that his claim to have experimentally > verified repression is in any way necessary, that he [Freud] "cannot > put much value on such confirmations because the abundance of > reliable observations on which these propositions rest [untrue, > because he had no such "reliable observations"] makes them > independent of experimental verification". Then he gives the > equivalent of a Trudeauesque shrug of dismissal, "Still, it can do no > harm" (Rosenzweig, 1992). Get lost, Rosenzweig! > > BTW, a photograph of the famous letter [written in German] is > reproduced in Rosenzweig (1992). Some time ago I tried to find out > where the letter was, as I had seen the same photograph in an book by > Weiner with the note "Sigmund Freud Copyrights, London". But the > acting director of the Freud Archives told me he didn't have it, nor > was it in the Freud Collection at the University of Essex, where he > referred me. The best bet seems to be that it's lying undiscovered > within the papers left by Rosenzweig at Washington University in St. > Louis. The paper on repression summarily dismissed by Freud is more > accessible: it's Rosenzweig and Mason (1934). > > I have one final issue to comment on, the claim that the theory of > evolution is an example of a respected theory without predictive > validity. I would say this is a myth or, at least, greatly > exaggerated. My understanding is that numerous experiments exist > using organisms which reproduce rapidly, such as bacteria, yeast, and > perhaps even fruit flies which verify adaptive evolution in the face > of imposed environmental conditions. Also, there's a kind of > backwards prediction (which sounds like an oxymoron). One of the > claims of evolution is that it proceeds in an orderly fashion, more > primitive organisms first, then the more advanced. So it's predicted, > for example, that human remains will never be found in the same > geologic strata as dinosaur bones, Alley Oop notwithstanding. This > prediction is tested every time a group of paleontologists goes out > on a dig, and it has never been disconfirmed. Finally, I browsed the > talkorigin website (at > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html) and I see a > massive collection of entries, each subdivided into "prediction", > "confirmation", and "potential disconfirmation". Looks good to me. > > Stephen > > References > > Bailey, P. (1964). Sigmund Freud: Scientific period (1873-1897). In: > Wolpe, J. et al eds. The Conditioning Therapies. Holt Rinehart. > > Rosenzweig, S. (1992). Freud and experimental psychology: the > emergence of idiodynamics. In: Koch, S., & Leary, D. eds. _A Century > of Psychology as Science_. APA [version first presented at a > conference September 4, 1979]. > > Rosenzweig, S., & Mason, G. (1934). An experimental study of memory > in relation to the theory of repression. British Journal of > Psychology, 24, 247-265. > > ___________________________________________________ > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 > Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 > Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at > http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm > _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
