The Foundations of Psychoanalysis

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique
Cover of the first edition
Author Adolf Grünbaum
Country United States
Language English
Series Pittsburgh Series in Philosophy and History of Science
Subject Psychoanalysis
Publisher University of California Press
Publication date
 1984
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 310
ISBN 978-0520050174

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique is a 1984 book by the philosopher Adolf Grünbaum, in which the author offers a philosophical critique of the work of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Grünbaum evaluates the status of psychoanalysis as a natural science. He also criticizes the views of psychoanalysis put forward by other philosophers, including the hermeneutic interpretations propounded by Jürgen Habermas and Paul Ricœur, as well as Karl Popper's position that psychoanalytic propositions cannot be disconfirmed and that psychoanalysis is therefore a pseudoscience.

The book received positive reviews and became influential. It was seen as a landmark in the debate over psychoanalysis, and became regarded as a masterpiece by some critics of Freud. Grünbaum was credited with providing the most important philosophical critique of Freud, refuting the views of Habermas, Ricœur, and Popper, and demonstrating that the validation of Freud's hypotheses must come mainly from extra-clinical studies. However, the book was criticized for being poorly written and for the amount of space it devotes to criticizing hermeneutic interpretations of Freud. Psychoanalysts have given Grünbaum greater attention than other critics of psychoanalysis from outside their discipline, but have criticized the book for Grünbaum's treatment of psychoanalytic theory.

Background

According to Grünbaum, his initial motivation for his critical examination of psychoanalysis came from his questioning of Karl Popper's philosophy of science: he suspected that Popper's argument that psychoanalysis is "inherently untestable" misrepresented its "epistemic defects". Grünbaum's approach to psychoanalysis was influenced by the work of the philosopher Clark Glymour. The critic Frederick Crews read the draft of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis in 1977 and helped Grünbaum to obtain a publication offer from the University of California Press.[1]

Summary

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Grünbaum criticizes Freud's theories from a philosophical standpoint, but denies that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience.

Grünbaum offers a "philosophical critique of the foundations of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis" and evaluates Freud's claim that psychoanalysis is a natural science. He also criticizes the hermeneutic interpretation of psychoanalysis propounded by the philosophers Jürgen Habermas, in works such as Knowledge and Human Interests (1968), and Paul Ricœur, in works such as Freud and Philosophy (1965). Grünbaum argues that while their work is influential, they misunderstand both Freud and the natural sciences. Drawing on the psychologist Frank Sulloway's Freud, Biologist of the Mind (1979), Grünbaum recounts the development of Freud's work. He notes that Freud described his theory of repression as "the most essential part" of psychoanalysis, and that when the psychologist Saul Rosenzweig announced that he had experimental evidence for repression, Freud replied that it was superfluous given clinical observations. Grünbaum criticizes the philosopher Karl Popper's views on Freud and psychoanalysis, and discusses the work of Clark Glymour.[2]

Grünbaum attributes to Freud a view he calls the "Tally Argument". According to Grünbaum, Freud used this argument in order to justify the claim that durable therapeutic success guarantees not only that the pertinent analytic interpretations seem appear true or credible to the analysand but also that they are veridical, or at least close to the truth. Grünbaum criticizes the theory of dreams Freud propounded in The Interpretation of Dreams (1899), the method of free association, and Freud's metapsychology.[3]

Publication history

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was first published in 1984 by the University of California Press. A paperback edition followed in 1985.[4]

Reception

Mainstream media

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis received positive reviews from Robert Hoffman in Library Journal and Frederick Crews in The New Republic and a mixed review from Jonathan Lieberson in The New York Review of Books.[5][6][7] Later discussions include those by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in The New York Review of Books.[8]

Hoffman described the book as a "painstaking study" and a "major work on the foundations of psychology that should interest philosophers of science and epistemologists."[5] Crews credited Grünbaum with showing that clinical evidence does not support Freud's ideas, convincingly criticizing the "Tally Argument", and demonstrating that free association is unreliable and that more recent versions of psychoanalysis suffer from the same problem as Freud's version, as well as discrediting the hermeneutic interpretations of psychoanalysis of Habermas and Ricœur. He argued that the work was an "epoch-making" work that showed "fairness and exhaustive rigor" and that it exposed psychoanalysis as a "speculative cult" and would inevitably lead to the discrediting of psychoanalytic therapy and its associated theory. However, he predicted that psychoanalysts would be slow to appreciate the importance of the work and noted that Grünbaum's discussion of Habermas and Ricœur would be difficult for many readers to understand.[6]

Lieberson described the book as a "strangely organized, difficult work, unmistakably a string of scholarly articles to which vast accretions of evidence and afterthoughts have been added." He suggested that the work was so much a reaction to other interpreters of Freud that it was only incidentally a book about Freud himself, noting that a third of it was devoted to criticizing the hermeneutic approach to psychoanalysis. Though convinced by Grünbaum's criticism of hermeneutic interpretations of psychoanalysis, he criticized Grünbaum's obscure and frustrating presentation of his views and poor writing, and rejected Grünbaum's view that it is important to establish a criterion to distinguish between scientific and unscientific statements. He considered Grünbaum's criticism of Popper less important than his attempt to identify the main obstacles to finding empirical support for psychoanalysis, crediting him with carefully exposing the flaws of Freud's argument that the therapeutic success of psychoanalysis confirms the interpretations made by analysts.[7]

Nagel wrote that Grünbaum neglects "the distinctively inner character of psychological insight", contrasting Grünbaum's view of psychological explanation with that of the philosopher Richard Wollheim.[8] In reply, Grünbaum criticized Wollheim, arguing that he misrepresented his objectives and claims, and Nagel.[9]

Scientific and academic journals, 1984–1988

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis received positive reviews from the psychiatrist Allan Hobson in The Sciences,[10] the psychologist Carlo Strenger in The International Journal of Psychoanalysis,[11] Edwin R. Wallace IV in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,[12] and Alessandro Pagnini in The Philosophical Quarterly,[13] and a mixed review from David Sachs in The Philosophical Review.[14] The book was also reviewed by George Butterworth in Government & Opposition,[15] Morris N. Eagle in Philosophy of Science,[16] Nathaniel Laor in the American Journal of Psychiatry,[17] the philosopher John Forrester in Isis,[18] Howard Ruttenberg in Ethics,[19] Donald L. Carveth in Philosophy of the Social Sciences,[20] the psychologist Paul Kline in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,[21] M. A. Notturno and the psychiatrist Paul R. McHugh in Metaphilosophy,[22] and Johan Eriksson in The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review,[23] and in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.[14] Grünbaum discussed the book in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy.[24]

Hobson described The Foundations of Psychoanalysis as "the most important book ever written on Freud's status as a scientist". He credited Grünbaum with damaging psychoanalysis by convincingly criticizing free association, showing the failure of psychoanalysts to refute the charge that it is contaminated by suggestion, and using detailed textual analysis to criticize The Interpretation of Dreams (1899), and with carefully re-evaluating Popper's position on psychoanalysis. He wrote that The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was a "watershed in Freud scholarship" comparable to Sulloway's Freud, Biologist of the Mind (1979), but predicted that the book would "find difficult acceptance because his arguments will be unwelcome to Freud's loyalists", and that many uncommitted students of psychoanalysis would "find Grünbaum's dense prose and leaden language too high a price for the beauty of his inexorable logic." Nevertheless, he concluded that psychoanalysts should "welcome Grünbaum's award of tentative scientific status to psychoanalysis as a ray of hope for their embattled enterprise."[10] Strenger described the book as an impressive attempt to examine psychoanalytic theory in detail, and wrote that Grünbaum "displays a remarkable knowledge of psychoanalytic literature and his arguments are lucid and well documented, which allows for fruitful discussion and critique."[11] Wallace described the book as an important volume. He credited Grünbaum with convincingly criticizing hermeneutic interpretations of psychoanalysis, but criticized some of Grünbaum's views.[12]

Pagnini praised Grünbaum for his "great intellectual honesty" and willingness to deal systematically with possible objections to his views, though he noted that this made the book "slightly entangled" and difficult to read. He credited Grünbaum with providing a careful analysis of the views of Freud's hermeneutic interpreters, a "devastating criticism" of Popper's accounts of both psychoanalysis and empirical testability, and "convincing evidence of the falsifiability of many Freudian theories". He also credited Grünbaum with showing that "the various formulations given by Freud of his theory of repression ... are based on spurious evidence and are weakened by serious logical defects", and found this to be the most interesting part of his book. He wrote that Grünbaum could be criticized for ignoring some of the most important contemporary advocates of Freudian theories, but suggested that Grünbaum's "arguments against psychoanalysis can be extended with very few exceptions to the theories of these authors." He endorsed Grünbaum's view that Freud's main hypotheses could be validated only by extra-clinical studies, and wrote that his work demonstrated the power and continued importance of analytic philosophy.[13]

Notturno and McHugh wrote that Grünbaum cogently argues that the clinical evidence held by Freud to provide the empirical basis for psychoanalysis is weak and that the validation of Freud's cardinal hypotheses must come mainly from extra-clinical studies.[22]

Scientific and academic journals, 1989–present

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was discussed by Edwin R. Wallace IV and later by W. W. Meissner in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,[25][26] Allen Esterson in History of the Human Sciences,[27] D. Patrick Zimmerman in Residential Treatment for Children & Youth,[28] M. Andrew Holowchak in International Forum of Psychoanalysis,[29] Paul Fusella in The Psychoanalytic Review,[30] and Stephen H. Richmond in The Psychoanalytic Quarterly.[31]

Wallace commented that the book had "received extensive attention in psychoanalytic and philosophical circles" and credited Grünbaum with providing "an important contribution to the epistemological assessment of psychoanalysis". However, he criticized it for "its treatment of the role of suggestion in the analytic enterprise, its scrutiny of the psychoanalytic genetic method, its appreciation of analytic methodology as actually practiced", and especially for "its predication on a unidimensional, positivistic vision of science."[25] Meissner wrote that it "forces psychoanalytic propositions into artificial positions that do not reflect the actuality of analytic practice." He suggested that its standard of verification was impossible not only for psychoanalysis but for "all forms of psychological knowledge", and that its description of psychoanalysis was often "difficult for the psychoanalytic practitioner to recognize". He credited Grünbaum with providing "skillful and highly informed criticism of the philosophical bases of psychoanalysis", but wrote that "value of his argument falls short of providing a useful basis for advancing psychoanalytic knowledge and particularly for promoting the quest for pertinent standards of validation within psychoanalysis."[26] Esterson criticized the "Tally Argument" that Grünbaum attributed to Freud, arguing that it was defective and also that it was not invoked by Freud.[27]

Zimmerman identified the book, together with Grünbaum's other publications on psychoanalysis, as representing the culmination of growing doubts about the scientific status of psychoanalysis, and wrote that Grünbaum's conclusions "have served as a model for the arguments against the usefulness of psychoanalysis, and have been extended by others to apply as well to psychodynamic and other forms of verbal psychotherapy." He wrote that while there have been "extensive rebuttals" of Grünbaum, including "more than 80 major articles" in the indexed psychological literature, these have not had the same effect on the public as criticism of Freud. He argued that while Grünbaum's arguments were "bolstered by a reliance upon techniques and findings extrapolated from the field of physics ... his positions were sometimes flawed by basic misunderstandings about either the methods or the conclusions of physics", and that Grünbaum's criticisms of psychoanalysis applied only to "classical Freudian" views and not to more recent "psychodynamic conceptions".[28]

Holowchak credited Grünbaum with showing that Freud's "impatience "manifested itself in tendencies toward hasty generalizations and biased samples" and that "Freud would often take any well-intentioned criticism of his views as evidence of resistance to them and, thus, confirmation of them".[29] Fusella credited Grünbaum with providing "an elaborate and comprehensive critique of psychoanalytic theory and therapy" and with exposing some of the weaknesses of the interpretations of psychoanalysis put forward by Habermas and Ricœur. He argued that Grünbaum's rejection of the hermeneutic interpretation of psychoanalysis left it unclear whether psychoanalysis would be considered pseudoscientific or an empirical science. He endorsed the psychoanalyst Marshall Edelson's criticism, in his work Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis (1984), of Grünbaum.[30]

Richmond identified the book as "a particularly influential work among those who argue that psychoanalysis should be considered generally invalid because it fails as science", and credited Grünbaum with providing a "careful critique of Freud as a scientist" and a painstaking argument against the hermeneutic interpretation of psychoanalysis. He considered Grünbaum correct to stress that "a valid science cannot ground its data in case studies but must move up the hierarchy of data in the direction of well-designed experimental studies" and to criticize the idea of "using intrinsically vague and subjective clinical encounters as objective data to validate the objective truth of any given psychoanalytic interpretation." He cited the neuroscientist Eric Kandel as maintaining in 2005 that Grünbaum's critique of psychoanalysis has "stood essentially unchallenged to the present day."[31]

Evaluations in books, 1984–1996

Edelson responded to Grünbaum in Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis (1984) and Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis (1988).[32][33] The psychologist Hans Eysenck, writing in Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985), deemed The Foundations of Psychoanalysis the definitive discussion of Freud's work from the point of view of the philosophy of science, praising Grünbaum's "logical rigour and argumentative precision" and "extensive scholarship of both the psychoanalytic literature."[34] The historian Peter Gay, writing in Freud: A Life for Our Time (1988), credited Grünbaum with discrediting Popper's argument that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience.[35]

The philosopher Michael Ruse, writing in Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988), credited Grünbaum with providing a definitive response to Popper.[36] The philosopher Jonathan Lear, writing in Love and Its Place in Nature (1990), argued that Grünbaum's arguments about the scientific status of psychoanalysis, like most criticisms and defenses of psychoanalysis, are irrelevant, and that Sachs correctly considered Grünbaum's account of Freud tendentious. He credited Grünbaum with effectively criticizing Ricœur and Habermas, but added that despite what is often assumed Grünbaum's arguments "do not undermine the more general possibility of a causal hermeneutic account of human motivation."[37] The philosopher James Hopkins, writing in The Cambridge Companion to Freud (1991), argued that Grünbaum's criticism of Freud's theory of dreams is based on a misunderstanding of Freud, and that the modes of inquiry he endorses are inapplicable to motive and therefore inappropriate to assessing psychoanalysis.[38] The psychoanalyst Joel Kovel, writing in History and Spirit (1991), credited Grünbaum with providing the best discussion of the problems surrounding the validation of Freud's theories.[39]

John Kerr, writing in A Most Dangerous Method (1993), identified The Foundations of Psychoanalysis as the work that "has come to define contemporary debate over the evidentiary status of Freud's claims."[40] Grünbaum, writing in Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis (1993), described the book as a response to analytic critics of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis.[41] The historian Paul Robinson, writing in Freud and His Critics (1993), stated that The Foundations of Psychoanalysis is widely considered the most important philosophical critique of Freud.[42] Richard Webster, writing in Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), observed that The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was seen as a landmark in debates over psychoanalysis upon its publication and became regarded as a masterpiece by some critics of Freud. However, he added that the book was criticized by the philosopher Frank Cioffi, who rejected Grünbaum's portrayal of Freud as a philosophically astute investigator of human psychology. Webster argued that while the book contains many insights and much pertinent criticism of Freud's approach, it has been overvalued by critics of psychoanalysis because of Grünbaum's overly theoretical and abstract style of argument, which has distracted attention away from issues such as Freud's character.[43]

The critic Alexander Welsh, writing in Freud's Wishful Dream Book (1994), noted that the amount of space Grünbaum devotes to criticizing hermeneutic interpretations of Freud has become notorious. He also observed that psychoanalysts have given Grünbaum greater attention than other critics of psychoanalysis from outside their discipline, something Welsh attributed partly to the importance Grünbaum attaches to the issue of scientific validity and partly to the dense nature of Grünbaum's writing concealing the implications of his arguments. He maintained that since it is not clear which parts of Freud's clinical data were reported and which were invented, Grünbaum's critique of Freud's claims to empiricism is seriously compromised. In his view, defenses of psychoanalysis against Grünbaum suffer from the same problem.[44]

Evaluations in books, 1997–present

Crews, writing in the foreword to the second edition of the psychologist Malcolm Macmillan's Freud Evaluated (1997), commended Grünbaum's critique of Freud, but criticized him for focusing on Freud's clinical theory while neglecting Freud's metapsychology, and for accepting "Freud's after-the-fact professions of methodological sophistication." He considered Freud Evaluated an advance over The Foundations of Psychoanalysis.[45] Crews included an extract from The Foundations of Psychoanalysis in his anthology Unauthorized Freud, where he described it as a "monumental study" and endorsed Grünbaum's criticisms of Freud.[46] The psychologist Michael Billig, writing in Freudian Repression (1999), noted that while Grünbaum believes that Freud's theories have been almost entirely discredited, that verdict is not universally shared, since psychologists such as Seymour Fisher, Roger P. Greenberg, and Kline "argue that the main elements of Freudian theory have been confirmed."[47] Ritchie Robertson, writing in his introduction to The Interpretation of Dreams, identified The Foundations of Psychoanalysis as the leading scientific critique of Freud's work.[48] The philosopher Philip L. Quinn, writing in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005), wrote that The Foundations of Psychoanalysis was influential.[49] The philosopher Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and the psychologist Sonu Shamdasani, writing in The Freud Files (2012), argued that while Grünbaum maintains that Freud was a "sophisticated scientific methodologist", who was aware of the possible effects of suggestion on his patients and attempted to deal with this issue through the "Tally Argument", his position is unjustified, since the argument "presupposes the non-suggestibility rather than proving it". They rejected his view that Freud abandoned his seduction theory because of adverse evidence, claiming, following Cioffi, that Freud could not have had any such evidence.[50]

See also

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Grünbaum 1985, pp. xi–xiii.
  2. ↑ Grünbaum 1985, pp. 1–5, 9–69, 97–99, 103–107.
  3. ↑ Grünbaum 1985, pp. 3, 5–9, 140–141, 220, 234–235.
  4. ↑ Grünbaum 1985, p. iv.
  5. 1 2 Hoffman 1984, p. 1851.
  6. 1 2 Crews 1985, pp. 28–33.
  7. 1 2 Lieberson 1985, pp. 24–28.
  8. 1 2 Nagel 1994, pp. 34–38.
  9. ↑ Grünbaum 1994, pp. 54–55.
  10. 1 2 Hobson 1985, p. 52.
  11. 1 2 Strenger 1986, pp. 255–260.
  12. 1 2 Wallace 1986, pp. 379–386.
  13. 1 2 Pagnini 1987, pp. 100–104.
  14. 1 2 Sachs 1989, pp. 349–378.
  15. ↑ Butterworth 1986, pp. 252–255.
  16. ↑ Eagle 1986, pp. 65–88.
  17. ↑ Laor 1986, pp. 930–931.
  18. ↑ Forrester 1986, pp. 670–674.
  19. ↑ Ruttenberg 1987, pp. 491–492.
  20. ↑ Carveth 1987, p. 97.
  21. ↑ Kline 1987, pp. 106–116.
  22. 1 2 Notturno & McHugh 1987, pp. 306–320.
  23. ↑ Eriksson 2010, pp. 40–46.
  24. ↑ Grünbaum 1988, pp. 623–629.
  25. 1 2 Wallace 1989, pp. 493–529.
  26. 1 2 Meissner 1990, pp. 523–557.
  27. 1 2 Esterson 1996, pp. 43–57.
  28. 1 2 Zimmerman 2000, pp. 55–85.
  29. 1 2 Holowchak 2013, pp. 149–160.
  30. 1 2 Fusella 2014, pp. 871–894.
  31. 1 2 Richmond 2016, pp. 589–631.
  32. ↑ Edelson 1985, pp. 1–184.
  33. ↑ Edelson 1990, pp. 309–348.
  34. ↑ Eysenck 1986, p. 212.
  35. ↑ Gay 1995, p. 745.
  36. ↑ Ruse 1988, pp. 29–31.
  37. ↑ Lear 1992, pp. 5–6, 49.
  38. ↑ Hopkins 1991, pp. 122, 127–128.
  39. ↑ Kovel 1991, p. 250.
  40. ↑ Kerr 2012, p. 574.
  41. ↑ Grünbaum 1993, p. ix.
  42. ↑ Robinson 1993, p. 180.
  43. ↑ Webster 2005, pp. 24, 560.
  44. ↑ Welsh 1994, pp. 124–125, 144.
  45. ↑ Crews 1997, pp. vii–ix.
  46. ↑ Crews 1999, p. 76.
  47. ↑ Billig 1999, pp. 5, 269.
  48. ↑ Robertson 1999, p. xxix.
  49. ↑ Quinn 2005, p. 355.
  50. ↑ Borch-Jacobsen & Shamdasani 2012, pp. 137–138, 331.

Bibliography

Books

  • Billig, Michael (1999). Freudian Repression: Conversation creating the Unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65956-6.
  • Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel; Shamdasani, Sonu (2012). The Freud Files: An Inquiry into the History of Psychoanalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-72978-9.
  • Crews, Frederick; Macmillan, Malcolm (1997). Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-63171-7.
  • Crews, Frederick, Editor (1999). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-028017-0.
  • Edelson, Marshall (1985). Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226184326.
  • Edelson, Marshall (1990). Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226184296.
  • Eysenck, Hans (1986). Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-022562-5.
  • Gay, Peter (1995). Freud: A Life for Our Time. Harmondsworth: Papermac. ISBN 0-333-48638-2.
  • Grünbaum, Adolf (1985). The Foundations of Psychoanaylsis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-05017-7.
  • Grünbaum, Adolf (1993). Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis: A Study in the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. Madison, Connecticut: International Universities Press. ISBN 0-8236-6722-7.
  • Hobson, J. Allan; Earman, John, Editor (1993). Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 0-8229-3738-7.
  • Hopkins, James; Neu, Jerome, Editor (1991). The Cambridge Companion to Freud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37779-X.
  • Kerr, John (2012). A Dangerous Method. London: Atlantic Books. ISBN 9780857891785.
  • Kovel, Joel (1991). History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-2916-5.
  • Lear, Jonathan (1992). Love and its Place in Nature: A Philosophical Interpretation of Freudian Psychoanalysis. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-16641-5.
  • Quinn, Philip L.; Honderich, Ted, Editor (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926479-1.
  • Robertson, Ritchie; Freud, Sigmund (1999). The Interpretation of Dreams. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-210049-1.
  • Robinson, Paul (1993). Freud and His Critics. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08029-7.
  • Ruse, Michael (1988). Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Basil Blackwell. ISBN 0 631 15275 X.
  • Webster, Richard (2005). Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Oxford: The Orwell Press. ISBN 0-9515922-5-4.
  • Welsh, Alexander (1994). Freud's Wishful Dream Book. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03718-3.
Journals

  • Butterworth, George (1986). "The foundations of psychoanalysis (Book Review)". Government & Opposition. 21 (Spring 1986).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Carveth, Donald L. (1987). "The Epistemological Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Deconstructionist View of the Controversy". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 17 (1).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Crews, Frederick (1985). "The Future of an Illusion". The New Republic. 192 (3).
  • Eagle, Morris N. (1986). "Critical notice: A. Grünbaum's The foundations of psychoanalysis: a philosophical critique". Philosophy of Science. 53.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Eriksson, Johan (2010). "The epistemological status of the case history and the play-character of clinical psychoanalysis: Two doctoral dissertations". The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review. 33 (1).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Esterson, Allen (1996). "Grünbaum's Tally Argument". History of the Human Sciences. 9 (1).
  • Forrester, John (1986). "The foundations of psychoanalysis (Book Review)". Isis. 77 (December 1986). doi:10.1086/354272.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Fusella, Paul (2014). "Hermeneutics versus science in psychoanalysis: a resolution to the controversy over the scientific status of psychoanalysis". The Psychoanalytic Review. 101 (6).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Grünbaum, Adolf (1988). "The role of the case study method in the foundations of psychoanalysis". Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 18 (December 1988).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Grünbaum, Adolf; Nagel, Thomas (1994). "'Freud's Permanent Revolution': An Exchange". The New York Review of Books. 41 (14).
  • Hobson, J. Allan (1985). "Can Psychoanalysis be Saved? (Book Review)". The Sciences. 25 (6).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hoffman, Robert (1984). "The Foundation of Psychoanalysis (Book)". Library Journal. 109 (16).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Holowchak, M. Andrew (2013). "Freud on philosophy and philosophers: Patching the gaps in the universe with nightcaps and dressing-gown tatters". International Forum of Psychoanalysis. 22 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Kline, Paul (1987). "The foundations of psychoanalysis (Book Review)". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 38 (March 1987).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Laor, Nathaniel (1986). "The foundations of psychoanalysis (Book Review)". American Journal of Psychiatry. 143 (July 1986): 930–931. doi:10.1176/ajp.143.7.930.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Lieberson, Jonathan (1985). "Putting Freud to the Test". The New York Review of Books. 32 (1).
  • Meissner, WW (1990). "Foundations of psychoanalysis reconsidered". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 38 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Nagel, Thomas (1994). "Freud's Permanent Revolution". The New York Review of Books. 41 (9).
  • Notturno, M. A.; McHugh, Paul R. (1987). "Is Freudian psychoanalytic theory really falsifiable?". Metaphilosophy. 18 (3/4).
  • Pagnini, Alessandro (1987). "The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique (Book)". The Philosophical Quarterly. 37 (146).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Richmond, Stephen H. (2016). "Psychoanalysis as applied aesthetics". The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 85 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Ruttenberg, Howard (1987). "The foundations of psychoanalysis (Book Review)". Ethics. 97 (January 1987).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Sachs, David (1989). "In fairness to Freud: a critical notice of The foundations of psychoanalysis, by Adolf Grünbaum". The Philosophical Review. 98 (July 1989).
  • Strenger, Carlo (1986). "The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. A Philosophical Critique: By Adolf Grünbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1984. Pp. 312 + xv". The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 67.
  • Wallace, E. R. (1989). "Pitfalls of a one-sided image of science: Adolf Grünbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 37 (2).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Wallace, E. R. (1986). "The Scientific Status of Psychoanalysis: A Review of Grünbaum's The Foundations of Psychoanalysis". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 174 (7): 379–386. doi:10.1097/00005053-198607000-00001.
  • Zimmerman, D. Patrick (2000). "Psychotherapy in Residential Treatment: The Human Toll of Scientism and Managed Care". Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 18 (2).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.