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.
In the preface to Volume 3 of this series, the editor repeats his indictment of psychoanalysis as a scientific theory, quoting critics who describe it as a set of unconfirmed hypotheses, with a literature of self-congratulatory clinical histories and a history of extravagant claims of efficacy in treatment. He sets forth the clinician's compelling reliance on intensive investigation of individuals and disparagement of empirical research as irrelevant to clinical theory. Apparently, in the editor's view, the typical psychoanalyst would disregard or ignore the fact that theory instructs therapist and patient, that the analyst influences the process through gross and subtle communication, and that patients learn to speak the language of their analyst, whatever his or her theoretical persuasion. He quotes Holt to the effect that uncontrolled clinical case studies are devoid of scientific value except as a source of hypotheses. Yet he acknowledges that very little of interest and very few creative ideas have been generated in laboratory studies of personality. He states that the function of empirical studies is to provide a slow