From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:34:35 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Aug26.213953.3949@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <59907@mimsy.umd.edu>, biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes in part:

>|> From some readings of skeptical books and publications, it seems
>|> that much of Freud's work was quite incompetent. The term "quackery" 
>|> comes to mind. In no sense did the man use anything like a scientific
>|> method. All that can be said is that his methods were an improvement
>|> on much that came before.

>I consider anyone that follows Freudian stuff today to be a quack.
>This does not make Freud a quack or incompetent.  Please something about
>Freud's work in its historical context before declaring it to be trash.  
>He definitly DID use scientific data, although he theorized well beyond 
>what could be well supported.  Do you know any clinicians that DON'T
>theorize well beyond what is fully known?

If such _hypothesizing_ is presented as nothing more than hypotheses
to be tested in the future, it is honest and reasonable science. However,
when it becomes a curious mixture of theory and dogma, it is pseudo-
science. Freud's modeling of the mind went well beyond the valid 
scientific use of a model, to the point that the id/ego/superego
became things-in-themselves, rather than rough abstractions, to be
discarded as soon as a better model came along.

Further, he used unverified suppositions as a basis for therapy, rather
than a basis for experimental hypotheses. How much damage did he and 
his followers do by telling parents of autistic children that the autism 
was a result of their emotional coldness toward their kids? How much
did he and his people charge those poor parents? How much money has
been wasted by following the Freudian doctrine that serious psychological 
problems could be solved by talking-at-the-patient, when it appears that 
few if any really can be (beyond placebo level effects)? 
 
As for quackery, his refusal to consider physical causes, in at least one
case, represented something other than ethical medical practice. I don't have
(but could probably get) the reference, but I have read of one case in which
a female patient was being treated by both Freud and one of his (esteemed) 
colleagues. The colleague was a true wacko, who usually attributed problems to
"nasal psychosis" or words to that effect. His therapies consisted of nasal
cauterization, nasal application of cocaine (!), and, if needed, surgical 
removal of pieces of bone from the nasal passages. He was also a terrible
surgeon, accidentally leaving several feet of gauze in the nasal cavity of 
the patient in question. While under analysis by Freud, she began bleeding 
from the nose. Freud attributed the bleeding to a phychosomatic manifestation
of her repressed sexual desire for Freud himself, rather than checking the
physical condition of her nasal passages.

Yes, there was a lot of other quackery in medicine at the time. Freud's could,
at best, be argued to be a bit less destructive than some of his contemporaries.
 
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins