Frank Cioffi’s criticism of Freud is a fountg of disinforemation. Anna O. was not Freud;s patient, she was the pastient of Joseph Breuer, a physician who was a friend of Freuds. Breuer wrote the description of the case of Anna O. Further Freud acknowledged that Breuer’s talking cure of Anna O, was not an unqualified sucess and preposed revisions to Breuer’s techniques. Since the account of Anna O. came from Breuer, no criticism of the case presentation should directed at Freud. Breuer, not Freud was responsible for any inaccuracies in the presentation. It is indeed shocking that such inaccuracies should enter into an essay accusing Freud of intellectual dishonesty. Frank Cioffi demonstats his own incompetance by misidentify Freud as the author of ther Anna O.’s case study. This disgraceful essay demonstrates the writers profound ignorance of his topic.
Charles Barton has imputed to Cioffi the attributing to Freud of the authorship of the Anna O. case study, something nowhere to be found in his article. Cioffi is writing about Freud’s later *claims* about the alleged “cure” of Anna O. that he repeatedly used to buttress his contention that the recalling of repressed memories of traumatic experiences of the kind he posited removes symptoms diagnosed as “hysteria”. These claims can be found in several expository publications, including “Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis” (1910), “Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis” (1916), an encyclopaedia article (1923), and in “A Short Account of Psychoanalysis” (1924).
Nowhere in his published works does Freud acknowledge, as Barton implies, that the “cure” of Anna O. was not completely successful (though we know from a letter Freud wrote to his future wife in 1883 that he was aware of the fact soon after the termination of the treatment). Perhaps Barton would like to cite any publication in which Freud “acknowledges” that Breuer’s treatment of Anna O. was not an unqualified success.
The above suffices to show that the ‘evidence’ supposedly showing that Cioffi has demonstrated “profound ignorance of his topic” is misconceived.
Freud was dismissed by psychologists (and others, notably Karl Popper) eighty years ago. His theories are not falsifiable, hence meaningless. Even if he hadn’t lied, they’d still be meaningless. Why are so many people still obsessed with him?
I believe that there is *some* merit in the contentions of defenders of psychoanalytic notions that some of its explanatory propositions (such as purported motivations of individuals, or the sources of the motivations) are not amenable to scientific proof or disproof. In such instances it may be that we must make judgements on the basis of humanistic criteria, as, e.g., when assessing the credibility of an historian’s account of the motives of an historical figure.
Frank Cioffi engages with the issue of Freudian psychoanalysis and science in an earlier piece published on B&W:
“It is a pity that the word science was ever introduced into the dispute over Freud’s claims to knowledge…It would spare readers much tiresome rationalisation of Freud’s deficiencies if it were clearly understood that the charge that they must meet is not that Freud was a poor scientist but that he was a tendentious interpreter of the phenomena he purported to account for. It would be more accurate to call him a pseudo-hermeneut and psychoanalysis, a pseudo-hermeneutics.”
It is worth (re-)reading the rest, but for those short of time here is Cioffi’s concluding “Catechism”:
Is Freud a pseudo-scientist? Yes.
Is this because his theories are untestable?
No. (Though some of them are untestable.)
Is this because he arbitrarily refused to capitulate to reported falsifications? No. (Though he sometimes does arbitrarily refuse to capitulate to falsifications.)
Why is Freud a pseudo-scientist then?
The strongest reason for considering Freud a pseudo-scientist is that he claimed to have tested – and thus to have provided the most cogent grounds for accepting – theories which are either untestable or even if testable had not been tested. It is spurious claims to have tested an untestable or untested theory which are the most pertinent grounds for deeming Freud and his followers pseudoscientists (though pseudo-hermeneut would have been a more apposite and felicitous description).
Aryan Invasion theory that Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer support is based on The Genesis. They are nothing but Bible thumpers who are forcing creationism down the throats of our children.
The theory claims that all Indians are descended from Noah’s son Japheth and that they came from Central Asia (where Noah ended up). Further, there is supposed to be a proto-language from which Indian langauges are derived. This is based on the claim of the existence of one language at the Tower of Babel.
All pseudo-scholars who believe in this nonsense or its variants like the Aryan Migration theory are devotees of William Jones and Max Muller. Even Jones and Muler admitted the biblical motive for their theories. Hiding that fact does not make it any less academic.
As a Christain from India, I find Witzel’s comment ridiculing Hindus for their practice of cremating dead bodies, to be nothing but a Christian Supremacits view.
In a Shorter History of God, Professor Hoffmann is right on with his criticism of the Bible, its God and its adherents. Unfortunately and appallingly, in this scientifically advanced 21st century, religious beliefs still hold sway. With few exceptions, members of our own families
are still held as captives to faith based wishful thinking rather than as
evidence based attitudes obtained from reason. Reason may not always lead us
Hypothetical Hypocrisy: I think people are often too quick to charge others with hypocrisy; a lot of the “He said A here, but did B there” is explicable by some quite sensible distinctions between A and B. But I’m especially bugged by overconfident claims of hypocrisy — “He said A, but I’m positive he would have done B there had the situation only happened.” This is especially so when the claims name some particular person. If you’re going to accuse someone of being a hypocrite, it seems to me that you ought to have pretty solid foundations for your accusation. Your guess as to how the person would have reacted in a hypothetical situation will only rarely qualify. “
I have experienced this often with people arguing against me as a support of shooting sports. Racism is so assumed that certian individuals label the other side KKK and presume a racist position by me/us on anything whatever, then go ‘See, see, huh, huh?’
Your website claims to be seeking a truth that is somehow removed from ideology. I can see a lot of baiting and judging from various ideological perspectives on your website (as well as a rather high count of typos), some of which I personally enjoyed, but I am troubled that you do not consider it necessary to question the idea that
“to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour” (from the About B&W page).
Ahh if only life were so simple. Removing preconceptions sounds as easy as taking off a shirt. No matter that your entire personal history, your socialization, your identity, your choices in appearance, diet, education, partner and all manner of day-to-day decisions rest on the accumulation of your cultural experience. No matter that the endeavour of seeking truth rests on succeeding, replacing, updating and removing competing idoelogies, not to mention the ideologies that attract the greatest reseach funds and/or tenure for academics. Is none of this important? Can it be just brushed aside? Perhaps, if this is your viewpoint, you might like to explain exactly how the rest of us lesser mortals are able to put aside our preconceptions (ideological, political, moral etc.).
A minor point in Nick’s letter (before the heavier stuff comes in!):
He wrote
>I can see a lot of baiting and judging from various ideological perspectives on your website (as well as a rather high count of typos)…<
I don’t recall much in the way of typos in the B&W articles, or in Ophelia’s N&C, but there are (not surprisingly) plenty in the letters and the responses at N&C for which the editor is not responsible. For example from Nick:
>No matter that the endeavour of seeking truth rests on succeeding, replacing, updating and removing competing idoelogies, not to mention the ideologies that attract the greatest reseach funds and/or tenure for academics.<
Nick writes in regard to a sentence in the B&W statement of principles:
>…I am troubled that you do not consider it necessary to question the idea that “to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour” (from the About B&W page). Ahh if only life were so simple. Removing preconceptions sounds as easy as taking off a shirt. No matter that your entire personal history, your socialization, your identity, your choices in appearance, diet, education, partner and all manner of day-to-day decisions rest on the accumulation of your cultural experience.<
I agree with Nick to the extent that the quoted statement requires the qualification along the lines that it is an ideal that, though not achievable, can be at least approached if one consciously keeps the limitations in mind. For instance, one should read (even seek out) books/articles presenting views/factual claims at variance with one’s own position, and endeavour to read them without automatically dismissing passages that conflict with that position. None of this is easy, and requires constant reaffirmation to avoid slipping into cosy habits of mind. So it’s not a question of either one can put aside preconceptions or one can’t, but more like to what degree one can do so, and how important for oneself is it to make the effort.
Just a very general comment to commend what this site is doing, regardless of whether or not I agree with any or all of the sentiments expressed. I live in Saudi Arabia and watch female subjugation daily in the name of Islam. People can say what they will about it being a faith that protects the women or being a faith of love or peace. I see the reality…I think many of you do as well.
>Freud a charlatan? Id, ego, super-ego, repression and sublimation are completely usless ideas? Hmmm.<
Well, let’s see what Freud says about his use of id, ego and super-ego:
“I am now prepared to hear you ask me scornfully whether our ego-psychology comes down to nothing more than taking commonly used abstractions literally and in a crude sense, and transforming them from concepts into things – by which not much would be gained. To this I would reply that in ego-psychology it will be difficult to escape what is universally known; it will rather be a question of new ways of looking at things and new ways or arranging them than of new discoveries.” (New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis)
So nothing new there, just new ways of arranging them. Same for sublimation: See Henri Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970.
As for repression, it is difficult to think of a psychological concept that has done more harm inside (and outside) of psychotherapy in recent decades than Freudian notions of repression.
I hope that “Dr” Steve Hall is not a medical practitioner, as his comments below are probably the stupidest contribution I’ve seen on this site.
1) “Freud a charlatan? Id, ego, super-ego, repression and sublimation are completely usless ideas? Hmmm.”
What is “Hmmm” supposed to mean? As a Californian teenager would say, “That is, like, SO not an argument”.
2) “Europeans, because we have nutty ideas, need to listen to people publishing out of CALIFORNIA? Hmmm”. See 1) above.
Perhaps the good “Dr” has heard of a little place called Caltech which has a mere 31 Nobel Prizes (see http://pr.caltech.edu/events/caltech_nobel/). And it’s in CALIFORNIA!
I wonder why Fuller is getting the bad press from B&W while Michael Ruse has been saying similar things about ID being taught in schools. This is from B&W: “Fuller seems to convince no one but fellow practitioners of ‘science studies’, but he makes a nice living in the process, so there you go.” This is from Ophelia Benson in TPM online on Michael Ruse: “His most recent book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, argues that evolutionism has no more place in state school science classes than does Intelligent Design.” This is what B&W writes about Ruse: “What Ruse has been arguing lately is somewhat controversial, so it is worth gathering up the controversy. Here it is.”
“I wonder why Fuller is getting the bad press from B&W while Michael Ruse has been saying similar things about ID being taught in schools.”
I’ve said some critical things about Ruse here too. But in all fairness, it was Steve Fuller, not Michael Ruse, who testified for the defense at the Kitzmiller trial.
This is a very good articleneeding commendation. Yoga and Ramdevjis techniques cannot cure serious diseases and the evidance is mainly anecdotal. I have tried many of his medicines which either give temporary releif or useless let alone cure diabetes (Madhunashini). This kind of exaggeration should stop,otherwise it affects the life of millions. I have a chronic eye problem lasting for 30 years undiagnised as yet. I tried yoga and pranayama but to no avail! Ramdevji and his colleages are not accessable by mail(not getting replies) or direct contact as they are precious and doesnt have time for ordinary folks. They dont have proved claims of cure based on medical evidance. What is the use of blowing trumphets without genuine evidance. I congratulate the Author for her ernest and wise opinion amidst superstitions
Frank Cioffi’s criticism of Freud is a fountg of disinforemation. Anna O. was not Freud;s patient, she was the pastient of Joseph Breuer, a physician who was a friend of Freuds. Breuer wrote the description of the case of Anna O. Further Freud acknowledged that Breuer’s talking cure of Anna O, was not an unqualified sucess and preposed revisions to Breuer’s techniques. Since the account of Anna O. came from Breuer, no criticism of the case presentation should directed at Freud. Breuer, not Freud was responsible for any inaccuracies in the presentation. It is indeed shocking that such inaccuracies should enter into an essay accusing Freud of intellectual dishonesty. Frank Cioffi demonstats his own incompetance by misidentify Freud as the author of ther Anna O.’s case study. This disgraceful essay demonstrates the writers profound ignorance of his topic.
Charles Barton has imputed to Cioffi the attributing to Freud of the authorship of the Anna O. case study, something nowhere to be found in his article. Cioffi is writing about Freud’s later *claims* about the alleged “cure” of Anna O. that he repeatedly used to buttress his contention that the recalling of repressed memories of traumatic experiences of the kind he posited removes symptoms diagnosed as “hysteria”. These claims can be found in several expository publications, including “Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis” (1910), “Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis” (1916), an encyclopaedia article (1923), and in “A Short Account of Psychoanalysis” (1924).
Nowhere in his published works does Freud acknowledge, as Barton implies, that the “cure” of Anna O. was not completely successful (though we know from a letter Freud wrote to his future wife in 1883 that he was aware of the fact soon after the termination of the treatment). Perhaps Barton would like to cite any publication in which Freud “acknowledges” that Breuer’s treatment of Anna O. was not an unqualified success.
The above suffices to show that the ‘evidence’ supposedly showing that Cioffi has demonstrated “profound ignorance of his topic” is misconceived.
I had a Kyiv programmer once in my employ who used the phrase “like breaking a butterfly on a wheel” for inefficiency.
It speaks to so much more.
Dwight
Freud was dismissed by psychologists (and others, notably Karl Popper) eighty years ago. His theories are not falsifiable, hence meaningless. Even if he hadn’t lied, they’d still be meaningless. Why are so many people still obsessed with him?
I believe that there is *some* merit in the contentions of defenders of psychoanalytic notions that some of its explanatory propositions (such as purported motivations of individuals, or the sources of the motivations) are not amenable to scientific proof or disproof. In such instances it may be that we must make judgements on the basis of humanistic criteria, as, e.g., when assessing the credibility of an historian’s account of the motives of an historical figure.
Frank Cioffi engages with the issue of Freudian psychoanalysis and science in an earlier piece published on B&W:
“It is a pity that the word science was ever introduced into the dispute over Freud’s claims to knowledge…It would spare readers much tiresome rationalisation of Freud’s deficiencies if it were clearly understood that the charge that they must meet is not that Freud was a poor scientist but that he was a tendentious interpreter of the phenomena he purported to account for. It would be more accurate to call him a pseudo-hermeneut and psychoanalysis, a pseudo-hermeneutics.”
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=156
It is worth (re-)reading the rest, but for those short of time here is Cioffi’s concluding “Catechism”:
Is Freud a pseudo-scientist? Yes.
Is this because his theories are untestable?
No. (Though some of them are untestable.)
Is this because he arbitrarily refused to capitulate to reported falsifications? No. (Though he sometimes does arbitrarily refuse to capitulate to falsifications.)
Why is Freud a pseudo-scientist then?
The strongest reason for considering Freud a pseudo-scientist is that he claimed to have tested – and thus to have provided the most cogent grounds for accepting – theories which are either untestable or even if testable had not been tested. It is spurious claims to have tested an untestable or untested theory which are the most pertinent grounds for deeming Freud and his followers pseudoscientists (though pseudo-hermeneut would have been a more apposite and felicitous description).
Aryan Invasion theory that Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer support is based on The Genesis. They are nothing but Bible thumpers who are forcing creationism down the throats of our children.
The theory claims that all Indians are descended from Noah’s son Japheth and that they came from Central Asia (where Noah ended up). Further, there is supposed to be a proto-language from which Indian langauges are derived. This is based on the claim of the existence of one language at the Tower of Babel.
All pseudo-scholars who believe in this nonsense or its variants like the Aryan Migration theory are devotees of William Jones and Max Muller. Even Jones and Muler admitted the biblical motive for their theories. Hiding that fact does not make it any less academic.
As a Christain from India, I find Witzel’s comment ridiculing Hindus for their practice of cremating dead bodies, to be nothing but a Christian Supremacits view.
Vincent
In a Shorter History of God, Professor Hoffmann is right on with his criticism of the Bible, its God and its adherents. Unfortunately and appallingly, in this scientifically advanced 21st century, religious beliefs still hold sway. With few exceptions, members of our own families
are still held as captives to faith based wishful thinking rather than as
evidence based attitudes obtained from reason. Reason may not always lead us
to correct conclusions or courses of
action, but there is no evidence that
faith based beliefs ever have done so.
Excellent discussion of a rhetorical gambit at the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_29-2006_11_04.shtml#1162591450
“
Hypothetical Hypocrisy: I think people are often too quick to charge others with hypocrisy; a lot of the “He said A here, but did B there” is explicable by some quite sensible distinctions between A and B. But I’m especially bugged by overconfident claims of hypocrisy — “He said A, but I’m positive he would have done B there had the situation only happened.” This is especially so when the claims name some particular person. If you’re going to accuse someone of being a hypocrite, it seems to me that you ought to have pretty solid foundations for your accusation. Your guess as to how the person would have reacted in a hypothetical situation will only rarely qualify. “
I have experienced this often with people arguing against me as a support of shooting sports. Racism is so assumed that certian individuals label the other side KKK and presume a racist position by me/us on anything whatever, then go ‘See, see, huh, huh?’
“Our California effort has all but emptied our coffers, and we are averse to dipping into our pogrom funds…”
Pogrom funds? Is this a typo?
Your website claims to be seeking a truth that is somehow removed from ideology. I can see a lot of baiting and judging from various ideological perspectives on your website (as well as a rather high count of typos), some of which I personally enjoyed, but I am troubled that you do not consider it necessary to question the idea that
“to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour” (from the About B&W page).
Ahh if only life were so simple. Removing preconceptions sounds as easy as taking off a shirt. No matter that your entire personal history, your socialization, your identity, your choices in appearance, diet, education, partner and all manner of day-to-day decisions rest on the accumulation of your cultural experience. No matter that the endeavour of seeking truth rests on succeeding, replacing, updating and removing competing idoelogies, not to mention the ideologies that attract the greatest reseach funds and/or tenure for academics. Is none of this important? Can it be just brushed aside? Perhaps, if this is your viewpoint, you might like to explain exactly how the rest of us lesser mortals are able to put aside our preconceptions (ideological, political, moral etc.).
A minor point in Nick’s letter (before the heavier stuff comes in!):
He wrote
>I can see a lot of baiting and judging from various ideological perspectives on your website (as well as a rather high count of typos)…< I don’t recall much in the way of typos in the B&W articles, or in Ophelia’s N&C, but there are (not surprisingly) plenty in the letters and the responses at N&C for which the editor is not responsible. For example from Nick: >No matter that the endeavour of seeking truth rests on succeeding, replacing, updating and removing competing idoelogies, not to mention the ideologies that attract the greatest reseach funds and/or tenure for academics.<
Nick writes in regard to a sentence in the B&W statement of principles:
>…I am troubled that you do not consider it necessary to question the idea that “to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour” (from the About B&W page). Ahh if only life were so simple. Removing preconceptions sounds as easy as taking off a shirt. No matter that your entire personal history, your socialization, your identity, your choices in appearance, diet, education, partner and all manner of day-to-day decisions rest on the accumulation of your cultural experience.< I agree with Nick to the extent that the quoted statement requires the qualification along the lines that it is an ideal that, though not achievable, can be at least approached if one consciously keeps the limitations in mind. For instance, one should read (even seek out) books/articles presenting views/factual claims at variance with one’s own position, and endeavour to read them without automatically dismissing passages that conflict with that position. None of this is easy, and requires constant reaffirmation to avoid slipping into cosy habits of mind. So it’s not a question of either one can put aside preconceptions or one can’t, but more like to what degree one can do so, and how important for oneself is it to make the effort.
Just a very general comment to commend what this site is doing, regardless of whether or not I agree with any or all of the sentiments expressed. I live in Saudi Arabia and watch female subjugation daily in the name of Islam. People can say what they will about it being a faith that protects the women or being a faith of love or peace. I see the reality…I think many of you do as well.
Thanks, CC. That’s appreciated.
Freud a charlatan? Id, ego, super-ego, repression and sublimation are completely usless ideas? Hmmm.
Europeans, because we have nutty ideas, need to listen to people publishing out of CALIFORNIA? Hmmm.
I’m all for debunking rubbish, but I’m not convinced by this site at all.
>Freud a charlatan? Id, ego, super-ego, repression and sublimation are completely usless ideas? Hmmm.< Well, let’s see what Freud says about his use of id, ego and super-ego: “I am now prepared to hear you ask me scornfully whether our ego-psychology comes down to nothing more than taking commonly used abstractions literally and in a crude sense, and transforming them from concepts into things – by which not much would be gained. To this I would reply that in ego-psychology it will be difficult to escape what is universally known; it will rather be a question of new ways of looking at things and new ways or arranging them than of new discoveries.” (New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis) So nothing new there, just new ways of arranging them. Same for sublimation: See Henri Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970. As for repression, it is difficult to think of a psychological concept that has done more harm inside (and outside) of psychotherapy in recent decades than Freudian notions of repression.
I hope that “Dr” Steve Hall is not a medical practitioner, as his comments below are probably the stupidest contribution I’ve seen on this site.
1) “Freud a charlatan? Id, ego, super-ego, repression and sublimation are completely usless ideas? Hmmm.”
What is “Hmmm” supposed to mean? As a Californian teenager would say, “That is, like, SO not an argument”.
2) “Europeans, because we have nutty ideas, need to listen to people publishing out of CALIFORNIA? Hmmm”. See 1) above.
Perhaps the good “Dr” has heard of a little place called Caltech which has a mere 31 Nobel Prizes (see http://pr.caltech.edu/events/caltech_nobel/). And it’s in CALIFORNIA!
I wouldn’t be so quick to deride acupuncture.
I wonder why Fuller is getting the bad press from B&W while Michael Ruse has been saying similar things about ID being taught in schools. This is from B&W: “Fuller seems to convince no one but fellow practitioners of ‘science studies’, but he makes a nice living in the process, so there you go.” This is from Ophelia Benson in TPM online on Michael Ruse: “His most recent book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, argues that evolutionism has no more place in state school science classes than does Intelligent Design.” This is what B&W writes about Ruse: “What Ruse has been arguing lately is somewhat controversial, so it is worth gathering up the controversy. Here it is.”
“I wonder why Fuller is getting the bad press from B&W while Michael Ruse has been saying similar things about ID being taught in schools.”
I’ve said some critical things about Ruse here too. But in all fairness, it was Steve Fuller, not Michael Ruse, who testified for the defense at the Kitzmiller trial.
This is a very good articleneeding commendation. Yoga and Ramdevjis techniques cannot cure serious diseases and the evidance is mainly anecdotal. I have tried many of his medicines which either give temporary releif or useless let alone cure diabetes (Madhunashini). This kind of exaggeration should stop,otherwise it affects the life of millions. I have a chronic eye problem lasting for 30 years undiagnised as yet. I tried yoga and pranayama but to no avail! Ramdevji and his colleages are not accessable by mail(not getting replies) or direct contact as they are precious and doesnt have time for ordinary folks. They dont have proved claims of cure based on medical evidance. What is the use of blowing trumphets without genuine evidance. I congratulate the Author for her ernest and wise opinion amidst superstitions
Regards to the author
Dasharathi