Psychoanalysis, Pseudo-Science and Testability

Cioffi, Frank

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-5093-1_2

Cited by 34 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9 My point about the problem of making this judgment is illustrated in sharper form by the original case records showing Freud's construction to have been even more different from the one he published. Freud supposed that the father had forbidden his son's masturbation, threatened him by saying it would be the death of him, and possibly also threatened to cut off his penis (Freud, 1909(Freud, /1955 see also Cioffi, 1985;Esterson, 1993, pp. 62-67). rules to assign its elements to categories.…”

Section: Constructions and Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 96%

TARGET ARTICLE: Limitations to Free Association and Interpretation

Macmillan¹

2001

Psychological Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Constructions and Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 96%

TARGET ARTICLE: Limitations to Free Association and Interpretation

Macmillan¹

2001

Psychological Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…By saying that “to approach psychology as a non‐science means to develop logically rigorous theories or ideas that cannot yet be tested for practical reasons but may become testable in the future”, I mean that non‐science involves any theory or idea that is not testable at present, either because the appropriate auxiliary assumptions or methodological tools are not yet developed, whereas science refers to theories or ideas testable at present 2 . In line with this rationale, pseudoscience does not directly concern whether a theory is testable now or not, but whether it is falsely claimed that it has not yet been falsified (for an additional discussion of this issue, see Cioffi, 1985). For example, if the key postulates of a theory have been empirically tested and falsified numerous times, but this evidence has been dismissed or skewed, and only the positive evidence has been retained, this theory would correspond to pseudoscience.…”

Section: What Does It Mean To Approach Psychology From a Scientific P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

(When) should psychology be a science?

Krpan

2021

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its emergence in the 19th century, academic psychology has striven to become accepted as a scientific discipline. This emphasis on “science” has led to many unprecedented advancements in the understanding of human behavior. However, the view that psychology must be approached as a science has become ingrained in the field over time, and critically discussing the implications of this notion has turned into a taboo. In this article, I examine the benefits and limitations of applying the scientific paradigm to psychology, and I propose when it is not optimal to approach psychology as a science if the field is to maximize its potential. Importantly, I do not imply that practicing psychology as a “non‐science” means practicing it as a pseudoscience. Quite to the contrary, I argue that not always enforcing the scientific viewpoint can prevent pseudoscientific practices and make the field more scientific in the long run.

show abstract

“…Any theories that could only be confirmed and never hold the possibility of being refuted is demarcated as pseudoscience. Scholars have long argued over falsification's precise processes and its implications on the scientific status of psychoanalysis (e.g., Cioffi, 1985; Grant & Harari, 2005; Grünbaum, 1979).…”

Section: Meehl and The Liberties Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meehl's well‐known monograph Clinical versus Statistical Prediction (1954) might seem harmonious with Eysenck's emerging campaign against clinical expertise, especially Freudian psychoanalysis. Though it was received and is remembered as a book about statistical processes of clinical diagnosis beating out a clinician's expertise, Meehl recalled his book as even‐handed 14 . Meehl was not seeking to entirely preclude the importance of clinical expertise.…”

Section: Meehl and The Liberties Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering Paul Meehl's disciplinary legacy

Davidson

2021

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In pursuing paths to methodological reform, many have drawn on the prolific work of American psychologist‐philosopher Paul Meehl. In 1996, the APA awarded both Meehl and controversial German‐British psychologist Hans Eysenck with Clinical Psychologists of the Century Awards. Two years earlier, they had both signed the “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” statement published in reaction to controversy over research on intelligence and race. To better understand Meehl's decision to include his name in that public statement, this article first explores the philosophy and politics of Karl Popper as it relates to the incompatible views of Meehl and Eysenck on the value of psychoanalysis. Despite their stark differences of opinion on psychoanalysis and psychometrics, Meehl and Eysenck shared a vision of scientific psychology with overlapping political values that, consequently, included a commitment to the liberties of race science. This article suggests that interrogating the politics and ethics of research is a crucial aspect of doing human science well, including improving its methodology.

show abstract

Psychoanalysis, Pseudo-Science and Testability

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

TARGET ARTICLE: Limitations to Free Association and Interpretation

TARGET ARTICLE: Limitations to Free Association and Interpretation

(When) should psychology be a science?

Reconsidering Paul Meehl's disciplinary legacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About