Talk:Adolf Grünbaum

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I suggest that the following material be worked into the article:
Grünbaum has rejected Karl Popper's critique of Sigmund Freud, and argued that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable,Grünbaum, A. The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. University of California Press, 1984, pp. 97–126. for example the theory that paranoia results from repressed homosexuality invites the falsifiable prediction that a decline in the repression of homosexuality will result in a corresponding decline in paranoia, contradicting Popper's claim that psychoanalytic propositions cannot be disproven.Robinson, Paul. Freud and His Critics. Berekely: University of California Press, 1993, p. 182-187. Grünbaum's view has in turn been challenged from different perspectives. Donald Levy rejects Grünbaum's argument that therapeutic success is the empirical basis on which Freud’s theories stand or fall, in that it rests on a “false dichotomy between intra- and extraclinical evidence”,Levy, Donald Freud Among the Philosophers, Yale University Press 1996, pp. 7, 129-165, 173-179while also rejecting Popper’s view that psychoanalytic interpretation entails making unfalsifiable statements.Levy, 1996, pp. 105-107. Ernest Gellner sees Freudian psychoanalysis as "an inherently untestable system [that] can and does often permit a kind of ex gratia testing, on the understanding that this privilege remains easily revocable at will and short notice."Gellner, E. The Psychoanalytic Movement: Or the Coming of Unreason. Paladin Books, 1985, p. 165. Both Frank Cioffi and Allen Esterson dispute Grünbaum's contentions that Freud was "hospitable to refutation" and his modifications of his theories as a rule "clearly motivated by evidence", arguing that his exegesis of Freud's writings is flawed on this issue."'Exegetical Myth-Making' in Grünbaum's Indictment of Popper and Exoneration of Freud." In C, Wright and P. Clark (eds), Psychoanalysis and Theories of the Mind (Blackwell, 1988). Reprinted in F. Cioffi, Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, Open Court, 1998, pp. 240–264.Esterson, A. Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud. Open Court, 1993, pp. 191–204.
Grünbaum has criticized Paul Ricœur and Jürgen Habermas, who have helped create "a distinctly hermeneutic version of Freud", one which "claimed him as the most significant progenitor of the shift from an objectifying, empiricist understanding of the human realm to one stressing subjectivity and interpretation." Grünbaum argues that their interpretation misrepresents Freud's views, falsely suggesting that his claim to be a scientist rested in faith in an outmoded materialist ontology of the mind.
The above material, in a slightly different form, is currently in the Freud article. I suggest that it be added here instead, as its detailed discussion of Grünbaum is more suitable to an article specifically about Grünbaum. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Grunbaum is definitely in Gleick's book.  On page 123 there is a section heading "Mr. X and the Nature of Time", and Grunbaum is mentioned in the first paragraph in exactly the context described in this WP article.  You can verify this by searching for "Grunbaum" in the Amazon.com "Look Inside" feature on the Gleick book page.  Thanks for your concern. ServiceAT (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions 

message: Professor Grünbaum died today.   I don't know who keeps this page up, but I thought you should know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.183.248 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. However, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS) and a biographical article cannot state that someone has died unless a reliable source has reported this. If you could provide a link to such a source, that would be very helpful. Note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and there is therefore no single person responsible for the article. You are free to edit it yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from IP and replies