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.
DEAR SIR,
For some time I have had the feeling that I was not altogether successful in my paper on 'The Present and the Future of Psychoanalysis' in the 50th volume of this Journal. Friends have told me that the stand I had taken was too pessimistic and not warranted by the facts. Now Dr Rotov has set out to prove, in a letter printed in this Journal, that I was wrong in many important details; in fact that I am unaware of basic facts about science and its methodology.
Before dealing with specific points in that letter, I must refer to a passage in his introductory remarks that puzzles me. I cannot find in my paper any statement that could be interpreted, as Dr Rotov does, as implying 'criticism of the medical profession with respect to its members being rather narrow in the scope of their knowledge and education'. I wish Dr Rotov had provided some clue as to which passage he thought implied such criticism.
ad 1. Dr Rotov criticizes my use of the word 'deductive' in the statement that any procedure that is based on empirical observation and that