Who Created God?

[Mercutio]

Why, because you say so?

Um, no, because it is. Even defenders of psychoanalysis, present company excluded, admit it is unfalsifiable.

The interesting thing about psychoanalysis (and I have to say that I am a "believer") is that it is untestable and therefore not scientific.

Another.

Robert Langs sets himself a difficult task in attempting "a hierarchical theory of psychoanalysis to render it as complete a theory of the emotional domain as presently possible" (p. 47). He knows the criticisms that have been leveled at psychoanalysis, and he separates himself from other apologists for the theory. He is forthright in acknowledging that psychoanalysis up to now has been unfalsifiable and is sharply critical of Freud and subsequent psychoanalytic theorists in failing to take seriously the lessons of evolutionary science. Langs stays true to Freud's view of his theory as a scientific one and does not embrace the move towards hermeneutics taken by many other contemporary psychoanalytic theorists. The task before him is to reform psychoanalysis into a scientifically respectable theory by incorporating the viewpoints of "formal science, systems theory, and psychoanatomy" as it says on the book jacket. The fundamental methodological point that drives this book is that "psychoanalysis cannot advance hypotheses inconsistent with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory."

Or this, from the European Journal of Psychoanalysis

Even if Darwin's original paradigm was unprovable (as all paradigms essentially are), after half a century some genuine Darwinian theories started to emerge. Bouveresse stresses, rightly, that this did not happen with Freud's paradigm: we do not yet have a genuine scientific theory drawn from the Freudian paradigm.

And these, I emphasize, are from supporters. I choose supporters because you seem to suggest that my calling it unfalsifiable must be motivated by my misunderstanding and/or bias against psychoanalysis. Of course, there are also sources which are more blatant in their evaluations:

Psychoanalysis is the granddaddy of all pseudoscientific psychotherapies, second only to Scientology as the champion purveyor of false and misleading claims about the mind, mental health, and mental illness.

Or, regarding the various defenses of psychoanalysis against accusations of pseudoscience, this:

As its scientific critics have shown, most of the research admired by Holland suffers from grave and obvious flaws. These studies, having been conducted by people holding a prior affinity for psychoanalysis, are riddled with confirmation bias and demand characteristics:

* Instead of testing psychoanalytic hypotheses against rival ones that might have fared better under Ockham’s razor, the experimenters have used Freudian theory as their starting point and have looked for confirming instances, which have been located with the same facility with which Holland once found oral and anal images suffusing the world’s literature.
* Terms have been construed with suspect broadness; strong causal claims have been reinterpreted as weak descriptive ones; and generous psychoanalytic rules of interpretation have helped to shape positive results.
* Freudian propositions have been assessed through the application of such questionable instruments as the psychoanalytically tendentious Blacky pictures and the Rorschach test, which already lacked validity before believers in Freudian projection twisted it to their own purposes. [14] (Holland himself twice appeals to psychoanalytic Rorschach findings as sound evidence.)
* Signs of unconscious cognitive operations have been misidentified as evidence of the very different Freudian unconscious at work. [15] (Holland’s paper indulges in the same confusion.)
* Replication of tentative outcomes by independent investigators-an essential requirement of experimentation in any field-has not been achieved or even sought.

It is Holland’s countenancing of these lax and biased practices that allows him to proclaim that research “supports an oedipal stage,” that “the penis=baby equation” has been vindicated, that “links between depression and oral fixation” have been found, and that “Freud’s account of paranoia gets confirmation.” Such “confirmation” is a strictly parochial affair, and that is why it has been left out of account by scientifically responsible textbook authors.

Critics of psychoanalysis hold that no distinctively psychoanalytic hypotheses, such as those just mentioned, have earned significant evidential backing. Freudians, however, typically credit psychoanalysis with having introduced broader notions that were, in fact, already commonplace in the middle of the nineteenth century. As the great historian of psychiatry Henri F. Ellenberger observed in 1970, “The current legend attributes to Freud much of what belongs, notably, to Herbart, Fechner, Nietzsche, Meynert, Benedikt, and Janet, and overlooks the work of previous explorers of the unconscious, dreams, and sexual pathology. Much of what is credited to Freud was diffuse current lore, and his role was to crystallize these ideas and give them an original shape.” [16, p. 548]

It is only Freud’s novelties and unique adaptations, along with those of his most emulated revisers, that ought to concern us here. Self-evidently, support for ideas that originated elsewhere, much less those that express the traditional wisdom of the ages, cannot be counted as favoring psychoanalysis. Apparently, however, Holland does not consider himself bound by this axiom.

You continue with this odd idea that ultimately psychoanalysis is something meant to be taken on faith, that its very ideas are predicated on validating preconceptions and not in finding facts. What can I say except your claims are simply ridiculous and, again, suggest that you are making sweeping claims about something you don't really understand. I don't say that as a criticism, but rather just to get across the fact that your charges are simply preposterious to anyone who understands psychoanalysis to a sufficient level.

I'm not sure what to add except to say that my previous observations stand -- psychoanalysis is scientific when its ideas are applied in a scientific fashion. There is nothing about it that is meant to be taken on faith. However, like any complicated science it's not something that can be mastered after reading a few paragraphs. I can't help but wonder if your disagreement with psychoanalysis stems from the simple fact you don't understand it. At the very least you seem obsessed with one particular application being misapplied one particular way. That is in the end not a lot with which to condemn a whole school of thought.

I do not say it is to be taken on faith--most practitioners are convinced by the evidence they have seen. And of course it works...it is unfalsifiable. Everything you say here could be said just as easily about astrology, and probably has been on this forum. If we only look in sufficient detail, we will understand.

Actually, I prefer the Jungian approach which is hardly so rigid when it comes to the interpretation of dreams.

No comment.

Uh, no. Like trying to understand any event or situation the solution that best works is the solution that best fits the facts.

I find it amazing that you are in effect saying that since psychoanalysis can find explanations for a wide range of phenomena that somehow demonstrates its ideas are unfalsifiable. In truth, all that means is that you have to take every interpretation on its own.

Again, I have heard this from astrologers too. Seriously, though, there is nothing wrong with finding explanations for wide ranges of phenomena, and there is nothing wrong with detailed, individualistic interpretations. You miss my point, which is that the underlying theory behind these interpretations is inherently unfalsifiable.

Likewise, the fact that interpretations can be revised in the light of new data is hardly a sign of a faith-based belief system. Science is forever going back and reevaluating old conclusions. Why is it such a crime when psychoanalysis does so? It honestly seems you are holding it to a far higher standard than science in general (or so I assume. I suppose it may be you have no faith in science as a rule).

I agree that at times what can seem like ad hominem is not, but I do not see how that is the case here. You are making unfounded, sweeping statements about a whole body of work based primarily on one distorted example taken out of context.

What alarms me about such responses is that they seem to fly in the face of good skepticism -- being a skeptic means being open to new ideas even as you evaluate them. I don't see that process at work here, just lazy preconceptions being taken at face value.

Alan

Nah, what you see is yourself looking at psychoanalysis in its most favorable light, and me looking at it in a considerably less favorable light. I show believers admitting it is unfalsifiable; they do not say it is therefore useless. We have a different standard there; I admire Freud's writing tremendously (the archaeological metaphor in Aetiology of Hysteria is simply brilliant, and the writing is wonderful), but have no use for it as science.

I can understand you supporting psychoanalysis; what I cannot understand is you denying it is unfalsifiable. It would appear that major players on both sides of the debate agree on that much.

 

[Alan_Hoch]

Um, no, because it is. Even defenders of psychoanalysis, present company excluded, admit it is unfalsifiable. Another. Or this, from the European Journal of Psychoanalysis
And these, I emphasize, are from supporters.

Oh, PLEEEEASE...

1) These sources are hardly glowing. One is openly hostile to psychoanalysis and the pedigree of the others is dubious to say the least.

2) Ultimately, this tactic is just another logical fallacy -- An Appeal to Authority. The fact some people who may or may not know what they are talking about said something concerning the scientific nature of Psychoanalysis is in the end meaningless. Any idea stands or falls on its own merits.

[/b]I do not say it is to be taken on faith--most practitioners are convinced by the evidence they have seen. And of course it works...it is unfalsifiable.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Everything you say here could be said just as easily about astrology, and probably has been on this forum. If we only look in sufficient detail, we will understand.

Which is just a long winded way to say that, yes indeed, you think psychoanalysis is meant to be taken on faith. After all, if "sufficient detail" was enough to prove its scientific validity your argument here would be meaningless. Thus, the only way your words in this regard make any sense is if you believe deeper research wouldn't reveal any scientific validity -- and so believing in it can only be an act of faith.

And I've already talked about the fallacy of guilt through association, so I won't go on about it further.

I admire Freud's writing tremendously (the archaeological metaphor in Aetiology of Hysteria is simply brilliant, and the writing is wonderful), but have no use for it as science.

You know, you may want to ruminate over why it is you must resort to repeated logical/rhetorical fallacies to make your "point". Mind you, that doesn't say anything either way as to whether psychoanalysis is scientific, but it is interesting how your tactics are exactly those we usually decry others using against science.

Alan

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, PLEEEEASE...

1) These sources are hardly glowing. One is openly hostile to psychoanalysis and the pedigree of the others is dubious to say the least.

Of course they are hardly glowing. Consider what they have to defend! My point here was merely to address your comment "because you say so?". You imply I am alone in my criticism; of course, I am not.

2) Ultimately, this tactic is just another logical fallacy -- An Appeal to Authority. The fact some people who may or may not know what they are talking about said something concerning the scientific nature of Psychoanalysis is in the end meaningless. Any idea stands or falls on its own merits.

So when I cite sources, I am appealing to authority, and when I do not it is "because I say so?" Nice.

Context....Again, I remind you I was addressing "because you say so?". My point was merely to show that others, on both sides, agree that psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable. I even tried to cite sources which were favorable to psychoanalysis, but I see that from your perspective they are "dubious". Perspective works that way.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Nah, talk about speaking plainly.

Which is just a long winded way to say that, yes indeed, you think psychoanalysis is meant to be taken on faith. After all, if "sufficient detail" was enough to prove its scientific validity your argument here would be meaningless. Thus, the only way your words in this regard make any sense is if you believe deeper research wouldn't reveal any scientific validity -- and so believing in it can only be an act of faith.

I eagerly await experimental evidence of the validity of psychoanalysis. I also eagerly await a falsifiable hypothesis. Perhaps you could expose my ignorance further by listing some?

And I've already talked about the fallacy of guilt through association, so I won't go on about it further.

But in this case, the shoe fits. In both cases, the complexity of the theory is a factor in its unfalsifiability. In this thread I address the exact same problem in astrology. "This is exactly what I spoke of before. It is a built-in excuse, making any prediction non-falsifiable. If a reading does not fit, it is simply because we have not looked at a complex enough level. If we looked at the whole chart, of course, we would see that it works. Ah, but the problem is that when we add the additional variables into the equation, we have increased the complexity of our model beyond that which we can test with our current population (and I mean that literally--the total population of the planet is not sufficient to fill out all the cells of the statistical matrix generated by the more complex model).

So...if Astrology works enough to be detected, it must show up at a simpler level (after all, our human perception is not as sensitive as our statistical models--if we have seen astrology work with our own eyes, it must show up in a statistical analysis). If it requires the more complex model in order to be accurate, then it is too complex to have been perceived with the number of people examined thus far. Those are, quite simply, the choices."

You say that psychoanalysists would not abuse the system that way...but nothing in psychoanalysis tells them where to stop! Again, it is not the analysts, but the unfalsifiable theory which is the problem.

You know, you may want to ruminate over why it is you must resort to repeated logical/rhetorical fallacies to make your "point". Mind you, that doesn't say anything either way as to whether psychoanalysis is scientific, but it is interesting how your tactics are exactly those we usually decry others using against science.

Appeal to authority? You were claiming I was alone, I showed that was not the case. I included sources on both sides of the debate, but since they disagree with you I suppose they must all be on my side.

Guilt by association? No, two examples of the same error. If you do not like your bedfellows, that is hardly my fault.

As for your arguments...you have claimed I am ignorant of the theory, you have claimed my sources were "dubious", you have accused me of errors which are simply not there. What you have not done is to simply list these falsifiable hypotheses about which we disagree. What would you consider to be the cornerstone ideas of psychoanalysis, and how would you, in theory, falsify them? I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong...all you need to do is demonstrate it.

 

[jan]

Alan_Hoch, you claimed that my doubts about psychoanalysis are based on an attack ad hominem: that I mistrust psychoanalysis because I suspect psychoanalysts to be exceptionally dishonest. Since my criticism is based on general methodological rules, such an assumption about my motivation is in itself an attack ad personam, and therefore a fallacy and not a valid defense (and, by the way, your assertions that your critics can't know much about psychoanalysis is an example for an appeal to authority). I may or may not believe that psychoanalysts are honest people doing their jobs, but that's completely irrelevant for the question at hand. Please consider the following:

Every scientific theory is falsifiable.
Psychoanalysis is not falsifiable.
_________________________________
Psychoanalysis is not a scientific theory.

No ad hominem, no begging the question, no strawman, no appeal to authority, no circular reasoning, no poisoning the well, no false dilemma, no guilt by association, just a plain, no-nonsense deduction.

Therefore, to attack the conclusion, one of the premises must be attacked. To attack the first one requires a methodological theory that explains how something can be a scientific theory without being falsifiable. To attack the second requires an explanation why psychoanalysis is falsifiable - most preferably, an example of a testable statement of psychoanalysis.

About the first premise: I provided an example why evolution theory is falsifiable. I also provided hints why the kind of astrology currently used is not falsifiable (although it would be possible to construct a falsifiable version of astrology - guess why nobody does that). There is a well-established methodological theory (namely: critical rationalism, the logic of conjectures and refutations) why every scientific theory is indeed falsifiable. Of course this is just another theory, and one that has its critics, but I am willing to defend it. And until now, you didn't show much interest in general methodological disputes. If everything that is true for the methodology of astrology is also true for the methodology of psychoanalysis and vice versa, then both must have the same status regarding whether they are scientific theories. Therefore, instead of crying "guilt by association", you should explain why and how both differ.

About the second premise: I suggested a possible test for one detail of psychoanalysis. This proposed test has been met with silence. Maybe my test is childish, useless, or otherwise inappropriate and only reveals my total misunderstanding of psychoanalysis. Then I would like to hear about a better test. Otherwise, I will assume that no such test is possible. Indeed, your remark that "actually, I prefer the Jungian approach which is hardly so rigid when it comes to the interpretation of dreams" seems to indicate that there isn't any. If you want to attack the second premise, the ball is in your field, but you seem unable to see it. How, exactly, do we know that a psychoanalytic theory is likely to be true? Or at least to cure people, more than a sugar pill therapy? Do you prefer Jung because his theory seems more likely to be true, or because you suspect his theory to be even less falsifiable than Freud's?