[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology becomes unfalsifiable

[Bob Zeuschner]

Hi Joanna --
Thanks for the response.

The question is: IS THERE REPRESSED MATERIAL at all?
And, if there is, IS it what the therapist believes?
Who can tell if the therapist is correct, except the therapist?

Freud (or the therapist) was the only one who knew or who could know -- 
so the patient had no way to disagree with the therapist, or the 
therapist's diagnosis. There was no way to show the therapist was mistaken.


Your remark assumes that Freud was correct, that the person had 
genuinely repressed stuff, and the omniscient Freud had divined this.

My understanding is that the claim that we repress stuff we find painful 
is not borne out by contemporary non-Freudian therapists.

The claim seems to be unfalsifiable.
Bob

On 9/6/2010 2:31 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote:
> "If you agree with me, that proves that I (Freud) am right.
> "If you disagree with me, you confirm my theory of resistance,
> which proves I'm right."
>
> Agree or disagree, it proves Freud right.
>
> This logic can be used by Freudians to deflect any criticism.
> But of course, it has also removed Freudian theory from any
> empirical observations.
>
> Bob
> Dept. of Philosophy
> _____________________
>
> Bob,
> I was under the impression that the way Freud used his notion of
> resistance, in therapy, was as an indicator of and guide to
> repressed material--ideas/feelings/whatever-- in the analysand,
> not as a way to prove himself right in the 'having it both ways'
> mode you presented.
> Seems to me that this oxymoronic claim arose in later literature
> written by other therapists and all...popularisers too. It's a
> puerile 'gotcha' ploy, not a valuable analytical tool, as I
> thought was Freud's view of it.
>
> Best, Joanna