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.
Three themes are repeated in the preceding essays: (1) Psychoanalytic data are unique to the psychoanalytic situation; (2) research designs can be developed to test data and verify psychoanalytic theory; (3) the canons of modern science which address the criteria for scientific activity, the falsification by empirical evidence (Popper, 1968) and eliminative inductivism (Grünbaum, 1984) apply to psychoanalysis. The critics of psychoanalysis as a valid scientific activity can be seriously debated.
Psychoanalysis is at a junction where improved communication is necessary with the scientific and nonscientific communities. Further development of psychoanalytic research methodology is an important component in our capacity to communicate. Unless psychoanalysts are able to communicate in a language that is consonant with the scientific community regarding psychoanalytic activity, psychoanalysis will be unable to respond creatively to the demands and changes within modern science. Moreover, unless psychoanalysts are able to communicate effectively about the efficacy of psychoanalysis with the nonscientific community, psychoanalysis will be relegated to the position of being considered an unimportant and ineffective oddity in current health-delivery programs.