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.
Since its inception more than a century ago, psychoanalytic theory and practice has been under attack by many critics for its alleged paucity of empirical evidence and thus weak scientific credibility. Beginning with Freud, many have defended its scientific standing based on their faithful reporting of “observations” of clinical phenomena and the systematic logic of their hypotheses and theories (after all, they argued, what is empiricism and scientific method if not observation and subsequent hypothesis and theory followed by further observation?). However, many other practitioners, while confident their theory and technique was valid and empirically well-founded, at least acknowledged the virtual absence of methodically designed, conducted, and reported experiments and studies that could meet the criteria and standards requested of usual scientific canon. The argument was frequently put forth that the complexity and subtlety of the psychoanalytic process and the theory it generated made usual standards of measurements and statistical analyses inappropriate. Thus for decades practitioners and recipients of the life-altering and healing powers of the art of a skilled psychoanalytic therapy continued to believe their reality while the hard-data-only empiricists, the uninformed, and the defenders against some of the unpleasant and narcissism-deflating tenets of psychoanalysis continued to be skeptical at best, or cry “fraud” at worst. In the meantime, there have long been a few optimistic, scholarly, and industrious