This is a repeat of my post from the other Freud as quack thread, which unfortunately devolved into a thread on Dianetics :rolleyes: Nothing I’ve read in this thread makes this post any less neccessary.
-
To be a quack, a person must “pretend to have medical knowledge.” (New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (1989)) The on line Merriam-Webster site uses the synonym “charlatan.” It is not certain that a “quack” has to be a “fraud” in the true sense of the word, because fraudulent behaviour involves an intent to decieve, whereas a “quack” might really believe what he is doing has value.
-
Did Freud “pretend to have medical knowledge?” Nothing that Unca Cece cites in his article discusses any lack of medical knowledge on the part of Freud. Instead, the Master asserts that Freud was a “quack” because he pretended to scientific methodology when, in fact, his methods were completely unscientific. In short, Cecil is calling Freud a scientific quack, a pretender to scientific methodology.
-
rparkes fails to understand the concept Cecil is trying to apply to define science. The test of scientific thought is not whether at any moment the hypotheses presented can or cannot be proved false, but rather whether the hypotheses can ever be stated to be true or false on the basis of empirical data. Here, it isn’t important whether a particular hypothesis is correct or not; it is whether the assertion has verifiability. The debate about “creationism” centers around this issue: can the assertions of the creationists truly be tested through application of reason to actual data? (note, PLEASE don’t start a creationist debate over this assertion; if you want to discuss theology, go to Great Debates!) So the issue isn’t: Can Freud’s theories be presently proven by empirical data? It is: Can Freud’s theories EVER be proven false by ANY amount of empirical data? Cecil asserts that the answer to this question is, “no.” The Freudian practitioner derives a hypothesis, for example, that certain behaviour derives from certain occurrences in infanthood. The practitioner procedes to obtain confirmation of this hypothesis through analyzing the responses of patients to questions designed to provide an understanding of the cause of the patient’s difficulties. Where the process breaks down is that the “results” are defined by the practitioner, who uses the responses to determine what additional questions are asked, then interprets these results to refine even further the attempt to extract data. This is not science.
To anaolgize to a true science, suppose that an early astronomer decides to test a hypothesis that Mars orbits the earth. He trains his telescope on the heavens, and notes the position of Mars on ten successive nights. Based on his observations, he then determines that he need only look at Mars on certain nights thereafter, those nights being the nights on which the position of Mars is of any value to the issue: all other data about Mars’ position is irrelevant to the issue, he concludes. Then he takes the data on the nights considered important, fits them to his theory about relative motion, sees they agree, and asserts this means Mars circumnavigates Terra.
Now, such an astronomer would never get far, because other astronomers would be able to obtain the ignored data and use it to prove or disprove the hypothesis. But in the case of psychoanalysis, there is no ability for other psychoanalysts to disprove the conclusions of the person making the hypothesis. While they might reach other conclusions based on their own questioning, they can’t point to any specific data and say: “these answers prove that the hypothesis is false.” They are left with the less palatable option of arguing interpretation. This is NOT science.
It seems to me that it is much more likely that the scientific investigations initiated by and inspired by Dr. John Hopfield of Princeton will be more likely to provide a scientific explanation of how the mind works. Reducing the mind to quantum interactions, treating it as it is, a massive interaction of sub-atomic particles, we begin to comprehend just what makes the mind think. While we may never comprehend the entire complexity of the brain, we at least will be able to procede on such investigations in a truly scientific fashion.