Stephen Black wrote:
The problem, as usual, begins with Freud, and as our resident
Freud expert, Allen Esterson, will undoubtedly tell you, Freud
is a fraud.

Unlike some Freud critics of my acquaintance, I don't actually think Freud was a fraud. I think the theoretical notions he derived from Breuer and developed further in the 1890s constituted a reasonable working hypothesis for the time. The problem was he was excessively certain about the correctness of his current ideas and was always able to convince himself that his clinical procedures were verifying the theory. And on the rare occasion, around 1898, that he was driven by experience to realize he had over-reached himself with his claims of having validated his theory of the aetiology of hysteria and obsessional neurosis, he couldn't face up to the fact that this might be because his theoretical assumptions were leading to spurious clinical 'findings'. In the words of the philosopher Clark Glymour:

"Freud was faced with the evidence that the methods on which almost all of his work relied were in fact unreliable, Freud had many scientifically honourable courses of action. [Glymour puts forward three suggestions.] 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."

In fact what he did was to develop his theories in such a way that his analytic technique of interpretation made them virtually refutation-proof.

Though there are documentable occasions when Freud can be shown to have been intellectually dishonest, I think more significant was his considerable capacity for self-deception.

Reference
Glymour, C. "The Theory of Your Dreams". In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (eds.), *Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis (1983). D. Reidel Publishing Company: 57-71.

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to