Each scholarly discipline has to have its own epistemology. The reason I write
about the need for rigorous methodology in the study of psychoanalysis is that
psychoanalysis is still being offered to the general public as a treatment of
mental illness. Thus, psychoanalysis has to consider what types of methods for
studying treatment effectiveness and theoretical validity are being used by
other approaches to treating mental illness. They are the 'hard science" which
I advocate.

If psychoanalysis were to present itself as a means of personal enlightenment
which makes no claim to change pathological behavior, then i would feel it
quite appropriate for psychoanalysis to adopt other epistemologies.


Richard A Koenigsberg wrote:

> Message text written by INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
> >I refer to studies which include appropriate controls and statistical
> methods-<
>
>         I myself was trained in experimental social psychology However the
> notion that the only valid way of obtaining empirical information about the
> world is through studies involving "controls and statistical methods" is
> antiquated.
>
>         This definition rules out approximately 70% of social science,
> including anthropology, history, much sociological research, not to mention
> volumes of research based on clinical data.
>
>         In addition, it would rule out sciences such as astronomy, geology,
> archaeology, paleontology, primatology, etc. where systematic observation
> rather than experimentation provide the basic research model.
>
>         It is true that a great deal of current work in psychoanalysis
> lacks rigor. It is also true that many contemporary therapists are poorly
> educated.
>
>         This business about the "scientific" status of psychology, however,
> has been going on a long time. Having observed the debate for many years, I
> conclude that no amount of "research" will persuade persons to believe that
> psychoanalytic hypotheses about the psyche are correct.
>
>         "It's still the same old story," and so it always will be. The
> reasons for hostility to psychoanalytic ideas will change from generation
> to generation. You rarely hear persons today demeaning Freud for his views
> about sexuality. In this domain at least repressed impulses and fantasies
> have been released from the unconscious.
>
>         Now, there are other domains in which resistance occurs. It's
> rooted in rage against the inner life, resistance toward the unconscious
> (as usual). By it's very nature, culture prefers to deal with what is on
> the surface, insisting that everyone accept the beliefs of the group and
> act out the same fantasies. Psychoanalysis deconstructs the group
> fantasies.
>
> With regards,
>
> Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.