I wrote, and like BO, while I possibly may have needed to calibrate those words differently, I take none of it back:
> >The problem, as usual, begins with Freud, and as our resident > >Freud expert, Allen Esterson, will undoubtedly tell you, Freud > >is a fraud. Allen's nuanced reply, somewhat surprisingly (to me, anyway) began: > > Unlike some Freud critics of my acquaintance, I don't actually think Freud > was a fraud. I was initially disappointed by this apparent lack of support but on reflection, it seems to me that we're not really far apart, and most of the difference may be merely semantic. First, Allen does agree that "some Freud critics of my acquaintance" do consider him a fraud (I suspect that high on this list would be Frederick Crews). Second, he quotes with apparent approval Clark Glymour saying: > > "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." And Allen then comments: > > 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. The two elements of taking a dishonourable route to deal with his methodological difficulties, and developing theories which are refutation- proof are prime elements of what I consider to be fraud (which one dictionary defines as "any deception, trickery, or humbug"). It's also worth noting that Freud himself admits in a remarkable letter to Wilhelm Fliess (Feb 1, 1900): "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". Rare truth from a devious man. Yet many continue to misguidedly honour Freud as a man of science, as an acute observer, an experimenter, and a thinker, all ideas which Freud was happy to encourage despite his admission to Fliess. That's what I would call fraud. Give me another name for it. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
