You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
During the early weeks of January a series of articles directly affecting the public image of psychoanalysis appeared in the intellectual and popular press—The New York Times(Goleman, 1985), The New Republic(Crews, 1985), New York Review of Books(Lieberson, 1985). All reported on Grünbaum's (1984), The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosphical Critique. These articles are accorded prominent space even though a philosophical treatise, especially one couched in technical, abstruse language, is not usually of arresting interest to either the editors or the readers of these popular publications. We would suggest that the reason the book has aroused interest is that the editors and readers presume it is a book about psychoanalysis, not a philosophical tract. Moreover, Frederick Crews, the author of the New Republic article, has used the book to suggest that Grünbaum has all but buried psychoanalysis as a viable scientific enterprise. That might be news if it were true!
The book, in fact, is not about the death of our science; rather, it and the former writings by Grünbaum, which have appeared in many reputable psychoanalytic and philosophical journals, are an attempt to look at the central tenets of psychoanalysis and assess their scientific status, given current philosophical definitions (see Laor, 1985). He asks what sort of science is psychoanalysis if a science at all? This issue is relevant