From Dynamic Lesions to Brain Imaging of Behavioral Lesions: Response to Commentaries

Neuroscience and the “science” of psychoanalysis

“…Now that it is possible to look in on all sorts of discussions via the Internet, the sad realization is how little contribution is made by psychoanalysts to philosophical, methodological and ontological discussions about the mind, on which we have powerfully useful conceptions (e.g. Raz and Wolfson, 2010;Raz, 2010).…”

“…Moreover, it seems to me that we might make another response to the many criticisms of psychoanalysis, one which should be to take part in much more discussion about the upgrading of the logic, evidence and 'science' of our own psychoanalytic methodology (Hinshelwood, 2013). If relying on the observations of other peoples' methodologies results in so much conceptual and methodological conflation and confusion (Raz, 2010), then relying on our own observations generated from the psychoanalytic method could be an interestingand clinicalalternative (see the debates in the recent special issue, number ii, 2015 of Psychoanalytic Inquiry). Solidifying our support for a 'subjective science' of psychoanalysis might after all be a better approach!…”