Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:53:48.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychoanalysis: Science or Nonscience?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Carola B. B. Mathers
Carola B. B. Mathers*
Affiliation:
Springfield Hospital and St George's Hospital, London SW17
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The debate regarding the scientific status of psychoanalysis is considered by many psychiatrists to be a sterile one; this leads to a polarisation of views in which those in favour of psychoanalysis, feeling themselves to be losing, retreat to the position of stating that meaning is more important than scientific status, while those against argue that because psychoanalysis is unscientific it is meaningless and thus should not remain part of our psychiatric practice; the debate being reformulated as psychoanalysis: sense or nonsense? The consequence of giving up this debate is that it allows us also to give up the struggle to define science adequately to ourselves, and to question the relationship between psychiatry and science. Our understanding of science reflects directly on the quality of our research; this is particularly relevant to research in the practical application of psychoanalysis. Before we consider our understanding of science, however, we should consider our epistemological theories, or how we know things.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Royal College of Psychiatrists , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , May 1986 , pp. 103 - 104
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1986

References

1. Popper, K. R. (1957) Philosophy of science: a personal report British Philosophy in Mid-Century, (ed. Mace, C. A.), London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
2. Bhaskar, R. (1975) A Realist Theory of Science 2nd. ed. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
3. Will, D. (1980) Psychoanalysis as a human science. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 53, 201–211.Google Scholar
4. Will, D. (1983) Transcendental realism and the scientificity of psychoanalysis: a reply to recent criticism. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 56, 371–378.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.