[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Richard H. wrote

> What caused Jung to criticize Freud was precisely his inability to
> jettison pet theories in the face of evidence. That was also Karl
> Popper's observation, and it was the principal theme in Jeffrey
> Masson's book the Assault on Truth.

Freud's ability to reconstruct his theories in response to new  
evidence was, in my view, exceptional, not just for a psychologist but  
for any scientist. And he was a scientist, especially in the  
beginning. His original project for a science of mind was  
neurological. He only turned away from this (again, in my view) due to  
the inadequacy of 19th century tools for studying neurology and  
neurological function. He used hypnosis with patients and abandoned it  
because the evidence showed it didn't work for many or for long. When  
he worked with Breuer it was the evidence of transference, suggestion,  
neurotic pain, etc. that led to the theory of hysteria. At this point  
the evidence suggested that sexual abuse was the cause of most adult  
neurosis. Later it was again evidence that led to an enormous change  
in the theory, this time evidence that abuse was not so common and  
that sexual fantasy and repression were the most common causes of  
neurosis.

We can debate the quality of the evidence about the extent of  
childhood sexual abuse, but we can't debate the fact that Freud  
changed his theories to fit what he saw--counter to his theory--were  
the facts. Richard mentions Masson's _Assault on Truth_. Masson is a  
very odd duck. I would mention Janet Malcolm's wonderful _In the Freud  
Archives_ as a counter to Masson. <http://www.amazon.com/Freud-Archives-Janet-Malcolm/dp/1862075980 
 >.

Still later, Freud also changed the his model of the mind to the  
topographic model. And he added thanatos in addition to eros. We can  
critique these changes, but he did make them in order for his theory  
to match his evidence. In fact, we can critique his evidence itself as  
being too narrow, but we still, I think, must admit that Freud did  
care about evidence. There were, no doubt, many reasons for the  
possibly anti-semitic, rebellious son bodhisattva Jung to criticize  
the semitic, father-figure bodhisattva Freud, but I don't think a  
supposed inability of Freud to adapt his theories to evidence was a  
good one. At least at the time of the break with Jung.

I think the trouble with Freud, at least the trouble *I* have with him  
(though I deeply admire him and daily use many of his key insights),  
is the fact that--especially toward the end--his theory did become  
more and more insulated. That is, it still could adapt to evidence,  
but it could not be falsified. I can see why Popper would consider  
this a mortal failure for a theory.

Franz
(who apologizes if this post is a tad fuzzy-headed, as his six year  
old daughter is home and distracting him greatly as he writes)