Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:33:54.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Tally Argument” and the Validation of Psychoanalysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert C. Richardson
Robert C. Richardson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The classic charge against Freudian theory is that the therapeutic success of psychoanalysis can be explained without appeal to the mechanisms of repression and insight. Whatever therapeutic success psychoanalysis might enjoy would then provide no support for the diagnostic claim that psychological disorders are due to repressed desires or for the therapeutic claim that the gains in psychoanalysis are due to insight into repressed causes. Adolf Grünbaum has repeated the charge in The Foundations of Psychoanalysis (1984), arguing that Freud's response to it in what he calls the “Tally Argument” is woefully inadequate. Grünbaum claims that Freud's defense depends on the view that only psychoanalytic techniques can yield therapeutic effects, and therefore that the transience of some psychoanalytic “cures”, the existence of alternative treatment modalities, and the frequency of spontaneous remission undermine Freud's defense of psychoanalysis. I argue that, whatever the merits of psychoanalysis, Freud is not logically committed to any view as extreme as that attributed to him by Grünbaum; and, furthermore, Grünbaum's rendering of Freud is historically inaccurate.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 668 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This paper was presented at the 1989 Pacific Division meetings of the American Philosophical Association. I am indebted to Micky Forbes, Harvey Mullane, W. E. Morris, and Larry Jost for helpful discussion and for comments on an earlier draft. The resulting paper has also benefited from insightful comments from a referee for this journal. This work was completed with the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Taft Committee at the University of Cincinnati.

References

Breuer, J., and Freud, S. (1895), Studies on Hysteria. Translated by Strachey, A. and Strachey, J., in Strachey, J. (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 2. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Eagle, Morris N. (1986), “Critical Notice: A. Grünbaum's The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique”, Philosophy of Science 53: 65–88.Google Scholar
Erdelyi, M. H. (1985), Psychoanalysis: Freud's Cognitive Psychology. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1905), “Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria”, in J. Strachey (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 9. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1917), Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, in Strachey, J. (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vols. 15 and 16. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1922), “Psychoanalysis”, in Freud, Collected Papers, vol. 5. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1984), The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. (1953), The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. (1978), “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46: 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, D. (1989), “In Fairness to Freud: A Critical Notice of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis”, The Philosophical Review 98: 349–378.Google Scholar