From: U29242@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Olympic Freud Bashing
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:13:41 GMT
 <1992Jul15.171335.23867@pony.Ingres.COM> <3917@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>
 <1992Jul21.051046.18878@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: sci.psychology
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

I have seen a great deal of back and forth (between Mary and John)
and I am inclined to agree with John (although he seems to be
approaching livid on the matter).  This last post (to which I am
responding) is the closest I have seen to any neurological aspects of
Freud so I will post here.
Although I am not at all in favor of Freudian theory proper (the
very same that gets bashed around in an Intro course) there is one thing
I haven't seen.  There is no mention on the quality of scientist Freud
was.  Previous to his beginnings in Psychoanalysis, La Salpetriere,
Charcot etc..... Freud was the student of Ernst Brucke, the prominent
european phsyiologist of the late 19th century.  Brucke gave a project
to Freud and it is probably one of the best examples of Freud's capacity
for quality research.  Though nothing as abstract and controversial as
his later theories.  Freud's reserach (mainly histological) on the CNS
was, and still is, of great importance to the Waldeyer's Neuron
Doctrine.  Essentially, he is credited with "discovery" of the axon.
 his was no small matter back in the late 19th century.  Stains were
capricious and the microscopes were limited.  Now, how does this relate
to Mary's Uncle Sid   (BTW, me too but for seperate reasons)?  I think
little credit is given to Freud in his attempt to come up with a viable,
testable, and elegant explanation of human behavior.  Although his
theories are difficult to reproduce and equally as slippery does anyone
think that a 19th century (or for that matter any century) scientist
trained as a physician, who bore the stigma of being Jewish in that era,
and then went on to study histology, neurology and then finally his own
Psychoanalytic school founding be capable of that goal?  Where did Freud
loose his scientific gifts when he switched?  Or did he ever?  My point
is that Freud may very well have been
(oops sorry) completely (and I am inclined to think so) ill prepared to
take on the task that he did.  So, what's this got to do with beans?
Nothing much but the post's name is enough.  Olympic Freud
Bashing.....Isn't it time that some credit is given to the person for
the work that he has done that fits according to every little skeptic?
Of course, it won't.  But that's the beauty of science, every theory is
rejectable otherwise it is not science.  So, Mary.....keep up with Freud
(he had an intersting life).  Look into his physiological work, it's
good.  Jon, you are the quintessential reason why sayingssuch as every
theory being rejectable exists.  I thought you may have wanted to know
that this person was a scientist for some time in his career and did
make an important contribution to the neurosciences (which includes
Psychology).  You two can keep going at it now.......:-)
Ray
Oh....BTW I mention the Jewish factor not because of any prejudice or
bias (I happen to be very fond of aspects of the religion).  I bring it
up because it was something that Freud faced in his career and
ultimately caused him a great deal of pain towards the end of his life
(as with many other European Jews in Hitler's era).  At times, it
prevented things in his life that should not have been (nor be for any
person.  I wanted to say that to prevent bending anyone out of shape.