Epistemology emerges from the study of the ways knowledge is gained in the different fields of scientific endeavor. Current polemics on the nature of psychoanalytic knowledge involve counterposed misconceptions of the nature of mind. On one side clinical psychoanalysis is under siege from philosophical “hard science” stalwarts who, upholding as the unitary model of scientific knowledge the Galilean model of science built around the “well-behaved” variables of mechanics and cosmology, argue clinical psychoanalysis does not meet empirical criteria for the validation of its claims. On the other side, its empirical character is renounced by hermeneuticists who, agreeing with “hard science” advocates on what science is, dismiss the animal nature of human beings and hold that clinical psychoanalysis is not an empirical science but a “human” interpretive one. Taking Adolf Grünbaum's critique as its referent, this paper examines how, by ignoring the differences between “exact” and observational science, the “hard science” demand for well-behaved variables misconstrues the nature of events in the realm of mind. Criteria for an epistemology fit for the facts of clinical psychoanalysis as an empirical, observational science of mind are then proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahumada, J.L. (1991). Logical types and ostensive insight. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis72: 683—691.
2.
——— (1992). De l'ange déchu et du “sujet”: une critique des bases de la pensée de Jacques Lacan et de sa technique. Revue française de Psychanalyse56: 425—442.
3.
——— (1994a). Interpretation and creationism. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis75:695—707.
4.
——— (1994b). What is a clinical fact? Clinical psychoanalysis as inductive method. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis75: 949—962.
5.
——— (1995a). The dimensions of the “negative.” Panel on psychic reality and its relationship to the defenses involving negative mechanisms. Abstracts of the 39th IPAC, San Francisco.
6.
——— (1995b). Introductory notes to the first topic, What is a clinical fact?IJPA 75th Anniversary Celebration Conference, São Paulo, March 1995.
7.
——— (1997). Counterinduction in psychoanalytic practice: Epistemic and technical aspects. The Perverse Transference and Other Matters: Essays in Honor ofR. Horacio Etchegoyen, ed. A.K. Richards, A.D. Richards, J. Olagaray, & J.L. Ahumada. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
8.
Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Hertsfordshire: Paladin.
9.
——— (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Toronto: Bantam.
10.
Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophical Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Blight, J.G. (1981). Must psychoanalysis retreat to hermeneutics? Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought4:147—205.
12.
Bouchard, A.-M. (1995). The specificity of hermeneutics in psychoanalysis: Leaps on the path from construction to recollection. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis76:533—546.
13.
Braithwaite, R.B. (1953). Scientific Explanation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
14.
Carnap, R. (1932—1933). Psychology in physical language. In Logical Positivism, ed. A.J. Ayer.New York: The Free Press , 1959, pp. 165—198.
15.
Cheshire, N., & Thomä, H. (1991). Metaphor, neologism and “open texture”: Implications for translating Freud's scientific thought. International Review of Psycho-Analysis18:429—455.
16.
Demos, R. (1959). Psychoanalysis: science and philosophy. In Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook, New York: Grove Press.
17.
De Waal, F. (1983). Chimpanzee Politics. London : Unwin.
18.
Duhem, P. (1906). La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure. Paris: Vrin, 1993.
19.
Edelson, M. (1983). Is testing psychoanalytic hypotheses really impossible ? Psychoanalytic Study of the Child38:61—79.
20.
——— (1984). Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
——— (1988). Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
22.
Eddington, A.S. (1931). Symposium: Indeterminacy and indeterminism. Aristotelian Society Supplement10:162—181.
23.
Etchegoyen, R.H., & Ahumada, J.L. (1990). Bateson and Matte-Blanco: Biologic and bi-logic . International Review of Psycho-Analysis17:493—502.
24.
Evans, A.S. (1978). Causation and disease: A chronological journey . American Journal of Epidemiology108:249—258.
25.
Freud, S. (1896). The aetiology of hysteria. Standard Edition3:191—221.
26.
——— (1917). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. Standard Edition15/16.
27.
——— (1923). Two encyclopaedia articles. Standard Edition18:235—259.
28.
——— (1925). An autobiographical study. Standard Edition20:7—70.
29.
——— (1938). An outline of psycho-analysis. Standard Edition,23:144—207.
30.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. New York : Crossroads.
31.
Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32.
Green, A. (1984). Le langage dans la psychanalyse. In Langages. Paris: Les Belles Lettres .
33.
Griffin, D.R. (1992). Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Grünbaum, A. (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley: SAGE Publications.
35.
——— (1993). Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis . Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
36.
Hook, S. (1959). Science and mythology in psychoanalysis. In Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy. New York: Grove Press, pp. 212—224.
37.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
38.
Laor, N. (1985). Psychoanalysis as science: The inductivist's resistance revisited. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association32: 149—166.
39.
Levin, F.M. (1991). Mapping the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
40.
Mill, J.S. (1852). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive . New York: Harper.
41.
Money-Kyrle, R. (1978). The Collected Papers of Roger Money-Kyrle. Perthshire: Clunie Press.
42.
Nagel, E. (1959). Methodological issues in psychoanalytic theory . In Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook. New York: Grove Press, pp. 38—56.
43.
Poincaré, H. (1902). La Science et l'Hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion, 1968.
44.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge, 1991.
45.
——— (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science. London: Routledge, 1992.
46.
Quine, W.V. (1962). The ways of paradox. In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976, pp. 1—18.
47.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.
48.
Richfield, J. (1954). An analysis of the concept of insight. Psychoanalytic Quarterly23:398—408.
49.
Russell, B. (1910—1911). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. In Mysticism and Logic. London: Unwin, 1989.
50.
——— (1948). Human Knowlege: Its Scope and Limits. London: Routledge, 1992 .
51.
——— (1950). An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: Routledge, 1989.
52.
——— (1959). Wisdom of the West. London : Macdonald.
53.
Spruiell, V. (1987). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: An esssay on a philosophical book by Adolf Grünbaum. International Review of Psycho-Analysis14:169—183.
54.
Strachey, J. (1934). On the nature of the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis . International Journal of Psycho-Analysis25:127—159.
55.
Waelder, R. (1962). Psychoanalysis, scientific method, a n d philosophy . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association10:617—637.
56.
Wallace, E.R. (1989). Pitfalls of a one-sided idea of science: Adolf Grünbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Assosciation37: 493—529.
57.
Wallerstein, R.S. (1986). Psychoanalysis as science: A response to the new challenges. Psychoanalytic Quarterly55:414—451.
58.
Whewell, W. (1858). Novum Organon Renovatum. In William Whewell: Theory of Scientific Method., ed. R.E. Butts.Indianapolis: Hackett , 1989, pp. 103—249.
59.
Wright, G.H. Von (1957). The Logical Problem of Induction. New York: Macmillan.
60.
——— (1968). Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
61.
Wurmser, L. (1989). “Either/Or”: Some comments on Professor Grünbaum's critique of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Inquiry9:220—248.
