As exemplified in Freud's cases, behaviour becomes meaningful as it is situated within a history (narrative). Operating from a Unity of Science orientation, Grünbaum emphasises causal rather than meaningful connections, and selectively follows early Freud: when (and only when) the repressed historical cause is uncovered, the symptom disappears. Since that consequential connection has proven to be not causally invariable Grünbaum discredits psychoanalysis as unscientific. Counterposed to his causal approach is that of philosopher MacIntyre, who contends that identity and moral responsibility must be situated within personal history. Also counterposed is sociologist Max Weber who struggled with parallel issues in the German 'Geisteswissenschaften' of Freud's time. The oedipal complex is akin to Weber's ideal types, as are the various models implicit in analytic discourse. Psychoanalysis must be understood as a normative science. In so far as contemporary psychology and psychiatry emphasise causal relationships, their procedures (experimental, epidemiological) can never hope to encompass psychoanalysis. Like other grand theoretical systems, psychoanalysis has applications in wide arenas--personal, developmental, familial, cultural, religious, historical, ethnological; its development during the last century has come from the interaction of findings from those arenas with those from the consulting room.

Humans↗

PubMed1983

How Oedipus falsifies Popper: psychoanalysis as a normative science.

The scientific status of psychoanalysis has been the subject of continual debate. Influential philosophers of science have challenged the form of its theories and the nature of the evidence offered on their behalf. Some have concluded that the theories are beyond testing--i.e., they can neither be confirmed nor refuted, and psychoanalysis is thus intrinsically unscientific, akin to pseudosciences such as astrology. From that body of criticism, I have chosen for examination and rebuttal the issue of falsifiability. I refute the charge that psychoanalysis is not scientific because its theories are not "falsifiable." On the contrary, I show that psychoanalysis contains theories which make strong and unequivocal statements that are subject to the test of possible falsification. This capacity has been concealed and the falsifiability criticism rendered plausible because of the normative judgments which are latent in discussions of human development and human society. In explicating these judgments, I will move from the philosophy of science to the anthropology and sociology of science (and of the professions). The normative character of psychoanalytic science reinforces the ethical code of the therapeutic profession, a combination which imposes a disciplinary rigidity of the theoretical system.

Behavior↗

PubMed1977

Fieldworkers and research subjects: who needs protection?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Behavioral Research↗