[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 04-09-10 00:02, Franz Metcalf schreef:
> Gang,
>
> Richard H. wrote
>
> 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
>   >.
>
> <...>
>
> 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.
>
>    
Hi Franz,
nice to read you´ve such a lively daughter.
Freud´s work on ´Totem und Tabu´ was not very solidly based on evidence, 
nor was his work about the malaise in Western civilisation at the end of 
his life. He supported the adventures of his daughter Anna and his 
nephew Ed Bernays, which was not very scientific. He stood at the birth 
of a tsunami of therapies that all were less scientific than medieval 
witchcraft.
I mean: he was a smart guy that´s true, but he could be very sloppy. He 
had much faith in science, but he was not very well versed in it.

erik