Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis

Mainstream media

Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis received a negative review from the philosopher Owen Flanagan in The Times Literary Supplement. Flanagan described Grünbaum's arguments as "relentless, breathless, sometimes windy". Though he considered the critique of psychoanalysis important, Flanagan wrote that "the battle will not be won by sticking as close to the text and its logical relations as Grünbaum does" and that it was necessary "to look more closely at the actual practices of therapists".^[4]

Scientific and academic journals

Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis received positive reviews from Ann Casement in the Journal of Analytical Psychology and the philosopher Patricia Kitcher in Philosophy of Science and mixed reviews from the sociologist Edith Kurzweil in Society and Melvin Berg and Jon G. Allen in the Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic.^[5][6][7][8] The book was also reviewed by Aaron H. Esman in the American Journal of Psychiatry and Nathaniel Laor in Philosophy of the Social Sciences.^[9][10]

Casement described the book as a "major sequel" to The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. She credited Grünbaum with using his "profound knowledge of modern physics" to criticize Habermas, and with demonstrating that "many practices in orthodox medicine are placebogenic". She concluded that the book was essential reading for anyone interested in psychoanalysis despite Grünbaum's "dense writing style", which made it "a difficult book to penetrate."^[5]

Kitcher credited Grünbaum with offering a compelling critique of psychoanalysis, including the views of "contemporary Freudians". She endorsed his argument that psychoanalysis rests on the "Master Proposition". She agreed with Grünbaum that the only methodologically sound way of demonstrating the "Master Proposition" would have been to conduct studies showing that psychoanalytic treatment cures neurosis at a rate better than placebo treatment, something neither Freud nor his followers did, and wrote that the "Master Proposition" was never supported by "reasonable evidence" and has now been shown to be false. She also wrote that Grünbaum provided an "illuminating account of placebos". However, she wrote that his criteria for determining "the adequacy of evidential support for a theory that turns out to revolutionize the intellectual landscape" seemed "unrealistically high", and that he "can only present a convincing case that psychoanalysis was not just wrong, but wrong-headed by being more sensitive to Freud's scientific context."^[6]

Kurzweil wrote that Grünbaum employs a highly technical philosophical terminology that made his book "often impenetrable", and predicted that "Grünbaum's abstruse discourse will put off the ordinary reader." She criticized Grünbaum for making "gratuitous, peripheral observations that obstruct the flow of his arguments", for example by referring to the political activist Anita Bryant in the course of a discussion of Popper's claim that psychoanalysis is not falsifiable. She found Grünbaum's responses to the analyst Edelson's criticisms of his views unproductive, arguing that neither Grünbaum nor Edelson truly appreciated the other's position and that they were "talking past each other". Nevertheless, she concluded that Grünbaum "is the most erudite and sophisticated spokesman for the long-standing empiricist hostility to psychoanalysis."^[7]

Berg and Allen wrote that Grünbaum displayed a "powerful intellect capable of discerning the internal logical girders upon which clinical inference making rests" and that his reasoning was "meticulous and capable of building intricate arguments that spring upon the reader with conclusions as gripping as a bear trap." However, while they credited him with "scholarly knowledge of Freud" and "proficiency at revealing logical flaws in Freud's reasoning", they concluded that his discussion of Freud came across as a polemic rather than a judicious evaluation and that there were places where the "logic of his own argument becomes strained and incoherent". They criticized him for citing "laboratory studies of perception and memory that employ experimental paradigms so far removed from the essential qualities of the psychoanalytic situation as to result in a meaningless comparison." Though appreciating his critique of Freud's original theories, they accused him of not being fully aware of the current state of psychoanalytic clinical theory and practice. They concluded that Grünbaum's book was "tough going" but also "essential reading" for psychoanalysts "who want to examine the basic assumptions underlying their work".^[8]

Evaluations in books

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 Paul Kline "argue that the main elements of Freudian theory have been confirmed."^[11]

Footnotes

Bibliography

Books

Journals