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.
There is a great difficulty in making the step between the scientific deductive system and the low-level hypothesis that is susceptible of clinical verification. The gap between the actual clinical (experimental) data and the theory that is being tested and is to contribute to the formation of an interpretation, seems to me to be very big; it is not only the ‘size’ of the gap, but the actual dimension in which it exists, which is so difficult to determine. Once the two have been brought together, it becomes simpler.
It is very important that the analyst knows not what is happening, but that he thinks it is happening. That is the only certitude to which he lays claim. If he does not know that he thinks such-and-such is happening, he has no grounds for making the interpretation. This may help to bridge the gap. The theory that is being subjected to empirical test must be related to its power to enable the analyst to feel certain that he thinks that x is the case – not to its power to make it certain that x is the case. The fact susceptible of empirical test is the certainty, or the degree of certainty, that the analyst can achieve about what he thinks is going on. He could say, “I quite realize that my view may be entirely wrong, but I do know that I am certain at any rate that this is my view”.