Polisher of Cobwebs (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 774: | Line 774: | ||
:And the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=515891282&oldid=515889742 reverting] begins. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
:And the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=515891282&oldid=515889742 reverting] begins. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::That material is nonsense. Esterson pointed out its problems some time ago - among other things, Ernest Jones didn't publish anything in 1945 that might be relevant to the statement made. Please don't restore it. [[User:Polisher of Cobwebs|Polisher of Cobwebs]] ([[User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:12, 4 October 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Psychiatrist?
SlimVirgin has altered the first sentence of the lead to read as follows, "Sigmund Freud (German pronunciation: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏt]), born Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939), was an Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist who became known as the founding father of psychoanalysis." It is unclear what the source for Freud's being a psychiatrist is, and I believe that identifying him as such may be a factual error. To my knowledge, standard print works of reference do not identify Freud as a psychiatrist, eg Arthur S. Reber and Emily Reber's The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology refers to Freud as the "Viennese neurologist Sigmund Freud." On the subject of Freud's role in psychiatry, see Shorter, who comments that, "It is Kraepelin, not Freud, who is the central figure in the history of psychiatry. Freud was a neurologist who did not see patients with psychotic illness." The implication seems clear that Freud was not a psychiatrist. I should add that the question of Freud's being a psychiatrist or not has been discussed on the talk page a number of times in the past (see, eg, talk archive 7), and the prevailing view has been that he should not be identified that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection if you want to remove that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Freud spent most of his life trying to understand and treat mental disorders. That is what psychiatrists do. What's the problem? Roger (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Psychiatry would generally be associated with treating patients in mental clinics. Freud didn't do that. Psychoanalysis, as a form of individual psychotherapy, had a different orientation to dealing with mental disorders. Besides that, psychiatry would involve dealing with different kinds of patients - people who are psychotic or severely disturbed, rather than simply neurotics. If you look up works of reference dealing with the subject, you'll find that Jung, in contrast to Freud, definitely is identified as a psychiatrist, and that's because it was his field. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not he's identified as a psychiatrist (the term may be an anachronism for the late 1800s, not sure) is minor beside the more important point that he remains very influential to psychiatry. The term "decline of psychoanalysis" is misleading because it could be interpreted different ways. If it means that managed care has favored short-term therapy and drugs over psychoanalysis, then yes. If it means Freud's ideas are no longer relevant to the practice of psychiatry, then that is not accurate. I'm confused why you speculate on what more recent sources "would" say, when I have provided you with 4 different recent sources on the relevance of psychoanalysis in modern psychiatry from the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, and Science. I could easily present more, including this from the leading psychiatry textbook Kaplan and Sadock:
- "Freud's fundamental hypotheses regarding the workings of the mind remain central to psychiatric practice today." Kaplan, Sadock, and Grebb, "Synopsis of Psychiatry," 7th ed., Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994, p. 237.
- Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Freud was not, strictly speaking, a psychiatrist, which is why standard works of reference don't identify him that way, and why we shouldn't either. The statement that Freud remains influential on psychiatry is probably not strictly speaking wrong, as there undoubtedly are some psychiatrists who are influenced by Freud to some extent. The problem with saying that Freud remains an influence on psychiatry is that it does not qualify to what extent, exactly, he remains influential. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Kaplan and Sadock's standard psychiatry textbook, for one, does give an extent of the influence; they use the term "central."Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think Freud's influence on the field can be fairly measured by what the psychiatric leadership, leading medical schools, leading journals and texts have to say. The numbers of psychiatrists practicing "classical" psychoanalysis does not reflect his influence either. If they are practicing any form of talking therapy they are exhibiting a Freudian influence. Even Paul McHugh, the chair of psychiatry for 25 years at Johns Hopkins, a very drug-oriented program, acknowledges the enormous influence of Freud on his work, even if he doesn't agree with every last thing Freud ever said. (I can source the McHugh statements if anyone's interested.)Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"Even Paul McHugh, the chair of psychiatry for 25 years at Johns Hopkins… acknowledges the enormous influence of Freud on his work…"
Where does he say this? In a review of Tani Lehrman's Of Two Minds in the Weekly Standard Magazine, 17 July 2000, McHugh emphatically rejected her claim that psychoanalytic training is fundamental to the training of young psychiatrists, adding: "Lehrman fails to appreciate that psychiatry is well free of the dominance of a conjectural theory that cheated many patients out of helpful treatment and caused a great many talented students to waste years of their lives on fruitless study." (Quoted in Joel Pais's The Fall of an Icon (2005, pp. 112-113).
- The point I was making was not that Paul McHugh is uncritical of Freud and psychoanalysis. On the contrary, he has been very critical of it, and sometimes quite cogently so. That is precisely why I brought him up: to make the point that even a virulent critic of Freud like McHugh acknowledges that Freud remains relevant to modern psychiatry. I was making this point because Polisher of Cobwebs objected to my inserting into the lead that Freud remains influential in contemporary psychiatry. (McHugh certainly does not feel that away about all Freudian ideas, but rather about some of them--yet he accords enormous respect to those contributions, and I will now provide the sources to support my statement.) I refer you to two books by McHugh. McHugh writes in his psychiatry textbook The Perspectives of Psychiatry, published in 1986 by Johns Hopkins University Press: "In this century, the preeminent contribution to an explanation of mental experience as function or meaning has come from Sigmund Freud." p. 10. He labels the explanation of mental experience as one of several important "perspectives" of psychiatry and calls this perspective a narrative or story approach to understanding people. "The art of telling the best story for a particular patient depends on a capacity for imaginative reconstruction of his life circumstances, a faculty richly developed in Sigmund Freud...." p. 131. McHugh despised the Freudian orthodoxy he encountered in his training in the 1950s, and he was thusly very critical of the Freudian "story" method when viewed as the only method available to psychiatrists. But as he says in The Mind Has Mountains, published in 2006 by Johns Hopkins University Press, "I am far from denying that story-based ideas have helped psychiatric practice." p. 45. He also sees behaviorism as having "important roots in the work of Freud, whose most lasting contribution to the field of psychology may be his having pointed out that human beings are driven by motivations that often dominate their activity and appear in various forms." Perspectives, p. 103. He then quotes at length from Freud's paper Instincts and their Vicissitudes and afterwards remarks: "It is the beauty and thoroughness of this description that identified the concepts of behavior and motivation in clinical science." p. 104. Thus, McHugh harshly criticizes what he sees as Freudian reductivism, lack of respect for scientific method, intolerance of other viewpoints, etc., but then grants that "Freud's fame is secure on other grounds...." The Mind Has Mountains, p. 29. Again, the point is not that McHugh is a Freudian, but that he is a prominent, influential contemporary anti-Freudian psychiatrist who nonetheless has incorporated Freudian ideas into his own practice. I bring it up not to prove that Freud is flawless, but to help prove that he has a continuing influence in psychiatry, which Polisher of Cobwebs had denied, refusing to allow me to add into the lead that Freud remained influential in psychiatry.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"If they are practicing any form of talking therapy they are exhibiting a Freudian influence."
I don't agree. The developers and practitioners of the widely practised CBT reject the psychoanalytic approach to psychotherapy. Esterson (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that CBT rejects the psychoanalytic approach in many important ways--however, it is a form of talking therapy and that idea of cure by talking originates with Breuer and Freud. If you subscribe to Paul McHugh's view, outlined above, Freud did a great deal to advance the study of motivated behavior, an underpinning of CBT. I would hope that we don't have to be so absolutist about Freud that we can't acknowledge Freud's influence even as we criticize him.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The successes of Freud's psychoanalytic movement in the realm of "talking therapy" has obscured the fact that historically psychoanalysis was initially developed at around the same time as other practitioners' modes of psychotherapy. For instance, Moritz Benedikt conducted psychotherapy involving discussions with patients before Breuer and Freud, and his ideas, as described by Henri Ellenberger, included the role of daydreams, fantasies, suppressed wishes, and the uncovering of what he called "pathogenic secrets" (The Discovery of the Unconscious, pp. 301, 536). (In their "Preliminary Report" (1893) Breuer and Freud noted that they have found the nearest approach to their own ideas and clinical procedures is to be found in published remarks by Benedikt.) Pierre Janet's system of "psychological analysis" was also a form of talking therapy, one developed before that of Freud, and Ellenberger notes that in their "Preliminary Report" (1893) and Studies on Hysteria Breuer and Freud cite Janet's work. (Rightly or wrongly - in my view wrongly - Janet accused Freud of taking some of his ideas and transposing them into psychoanalytic formulations.)
- Even more so than in Europe, talking therapies in the United States developed independently of Freud's influence. Eric Caplan writes that Freud has little role to play in the early history of American psychotherapy (including talking therapies). (Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy, 1998). It is not the case that we owe talking therapies as a genre to Breuer and Freud, they would have blossomed regardless of Freud's development of psychoanalysis. So I do not believe one can can claim that practitioners of CBT, which essentially takes a completely opposite approach to that of classical psychoanalysis, are influenced by Freud's ideas on the grounds that it is a talking therapy. Esterson (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Influenced list
In the edit field for this article, the following message is visible over the influenced list: "Please include only people involved in mental health care here, not philosophers, cultural theorists, artists, novelists or other people influenced by Freud. There are far too many of them to list here, and it serves no useful purpose to try." Nevertheless, in total disregard for this, a user has added Harold Bloom and "Frank Kafka" (sic). I won't remove them right away, but neither Bloom nor Kafka was involved in mental health, and neither belongs on that list, for the reason in the message. If the user who added these names wishes to change the criteria for the list, I suggest he develop a consensus the criteria should be changed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would be better to list the overall most prominent people influenced by Freud rather than only listing people involved in mental health care, which gives the impression that Freud's influence does not extend outside of psychology. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're probably right. There should, however, be some definite criteria for the list, otherwise it would become too long. It might make sense to restrict it only to people mentioned in the legacy section, which currently neither Bloom nor Kafka is. I think Kafka at least should be removed from the list; I'm very skeptical that he was "influenced" by Freud in any significant way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- That would be fine. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- POC, this will obviously come as a shock to you, but go to any biography of Kafka and look up Freud in the index. You will then learn still more new and exciting facts that have escaped the attention of your beloved Freud-bashers--in this case, Freud's seminal influence on Kafka, which Kafka states explicitly in his diaries. You say "I'm very skeptical that Kafka was 'influenced' by Freud in any significant way." Clearly, you are unfamiliar with Kafka's biography, much as you are unfamiliar with psychiatry, by your own admission (see above). So why do you express skepticism when you have no reason for it? It seems symptomatic of your biased conviction that Freud's legacies are all "negative" as you put it above. Meanwhile, the article's woefully inadequate "Legacy" section needs a subsection on Freud's substantial influence on modern art and fiction.Hypoplectrus (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- That would be fine. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're probably right. There should, however, be some definite criteria for the list, otherwise it would become too long. It might make sense to restrict it only to people mentioned in the legacy section, which currently neither Bloom nor Kafka is. I think Kafka at least should be removed from the list; I'm very skeptical that he was "influenced" by Freud in any significant way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hypoplectrus, if you want to add a section on Freud's influence on art and literature (or indeed literary criticism), then go ahead, if you have sources for it. Adding such a section would have been a better use of your time than pointless edit warring, or placing useless "neutrality disputed" banners on articles. But unless there's actually good evidence that Freud was an important influence on Kafka, he should be removed from the "influenced" list. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- goethean, your link does more than mention Freud. It explicitly states Freud's influence on Kafka. It says, "Kafka had long ago acknowledged Freud as an influence on The Judgement and he had taken an interest in another Austrian psychoanalyst, Otto Gross...." The Judgement was the creative breakthrough for Kafka, the story where he settled on the method that would characterize all his later work. Don't you think that your source refutes PoC's statement "I'm very skeptical that Kafka was 'influenced' by Freud in any significant way." ?Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Polisher of Cobwebs: Do you still want to remove Kafka from the list of people influenced by Freud given Goethean's source, which says "Kafka had long ago acknowledged Freud as an influence"? You are indeed right that edit warring is a waste of my time. I wish it were a waste of yours. You have hardly allowed me to make a single unmolested change to the Freud page and completely rejected my early attempts to enter into friendly, reasonable dialogue. That is hardly an auspicious beginning for me to get to work on a new section.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hypoplectrus: If you post a section including Freud's influence on Kafka, will you also note the following?
- In contrast to his earlier enthusiasm for Freud, Kafka undertook a heavy criticism of psychoanalysis from 1917 onwards. He attacked Freudian ideas from religious, philosophical and therapeutic points of view." [1]
Incidentally, it ill behoves someone who bandies about the term "Freud bashers" for critics of Freud to accuse Polisher of Cobwebs of having "biased conviction". Nor do I think it appropriate for you to describe Polisher of Cobwebs as "lording" himself over the Sigmund Freud page when as far as I can see he is appropriately concerned about balance in regard to a figure about whom strong opinions and claims are made both in his favour and against. Esterson (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Esterson, on the subject of Freud's influence, you suggest that it should also be noted Kafka was critical of Freud in addition to being influenced by him. Sure, I do not dispute that, and I see no reason to suppress the fact. The point that ought to be made on this page is that Freud had a major impact on the movement known as magical realism, wherein expressionistic material is construed by an author as a revision and alteration of real experience. This is one of the ways that Freud has influenced literature and also cinema. To note that Kafka criticized Freud or later rejected him entirely is to make a different point--it's to deflect the topic back onto validity. I think validity and criticism of it needs to be discussed in its own section.
- On the subject of PoC and my wonderful working relationship with him, your assessment is not at all fair. He thinks he is "appropriately concerned about balance," as you contend, but his idea of balance is to fairly and accurately represent a "negative" view of Freud, as he puts it, as if that were factual and as if divergent views were therefore biased. For example, he fought bitterly against my suggestion that Freud continues to influence psychiatry today, even when I provided numerous sources, and shrieked at me "Do you know what psychiatry is?". He fights against my point that Freud influenced Kafka, which is, unlike his assertion that Freud has no role in psychiatry today, a fact. I have no need to conduct an ad hominem campaign against PoC (even when his own comments are routinely ad hominem) except that I sincerely believe he has exhibited a distorted view of the facts about Freud and has made it very difficult for me to correct his errors. Two other editors, not me, have suggested here and here that PoC has come to "own" the Freud page. Here is one of the comments on Polisher of Cobwebs from another editor who observed the proceedings when I brought this to arbitration:
- "Reading the discussion at the talk page carefully, I think the problem is in part that the article has come to be "owned" by one individual with strong views. Some of those views are sound and well-justified, others are less sustainable, especially in areas where there is controversy or vagueness in the source materials. The problem is that the tone of the discussion (words like "I reject..." - this is a community encyclopaedia) is trenchantly negative towards anyone with a different view. Orderinchaos 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"
- That is precisely what I refer to when I say he is lording himself over this page in a non-collaborative way. The result is extraordinary difficulty improving the page and correcting inaccuracies and biases on it, such as the major error that would suggest Freud is no longr influential to psychiatry.Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hypoplectrus: Thanks for your measured response to my comments. Let me acknowledge straight away that I have missed out on the beginning of this POV dispute (around early June 2012), so my comments were made without sufficient knowledge of the details. Apologies all round. However, having checked these changes from 9 June [2] I must say I agree with PoC to this extent: "Regarding content, I would encourage you to develop consensus on the talk page before hacking out great chunks of it" (or, I would add, making several substantial changes in one go).
Incidentally, one type of problem with these exchanges is that one's own viewpoint can play too great a role in suggestions for content (I don't exclude myself from this, though I do try to maintain a policy of not removing any relevant items, preferring to briefly add alternative information or views as appropriate). Consider your writing above: "The point that ought to be made on this page is that Freud had a major impact on the movement known as magical realism…". I suspect it would take a lot of time to justify such an emphatic statement ("major influence"), not to mention differences of opinion on what constitutes "magic realism"[3] Isn't there enough to say about Freud without venturing into such controversial territory? Esterson (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for hearing me out. I agree completely that one should try to establish consensus before making big changes. I told PoC that I had made a mistake by initially reverting a big chunk of material without discussion and in fact I explicitly apologized to PoC--twice--once I learned it was his material I had removed (see above under "Freud Controversy," I think it is, on the Talk page). I also did not try to remove anything that size again. I made a sincere effort to compromise and enter into rational discussion here and I was rebuffed so thoroughly that I scaled back my ambitions so that I tried to remove zero content from the article and merely suggested adding a comment about Freud from neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel--the comment was about the lasting relevance of Freud's model of the mind, and it was published in a review of the state of mind science in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1999. (Kandel is by the way plenty critical of Freud and his heirs for their failure to publish their findings according to medical methodology.) PoC would not let me add it. Eventually another editor that PoC called in made some improvements to the lead and accepted my point and my sources, posted on the Talk page, showing that Freud is still influential within psychiatry. I was then able to add Eric Kandel's quote to the Legacy / Science section. PoC left it in (though he promptly moved it to the bottom of the section).
- I think it would be easy to provide sources that show Freud's influence on magical realism, but I don't think the article has to be that specific--if you find that statement controversial or think it requires too much argument, that's fine. But an encyclopedia article that neglected to comment on Freud's influence on artists and pop culture would not be giving a complete picture of Freud and the impact of his ideas. Artists like Eugene O'Neill, Kafka, Alfred Hitchcock, Salvador Dalí, Picasso, Virginia Woolf (whose Hogarth Press published Freud's work in England), and many many others were directly, openly influenced by Freud in ways that should be easily demonstrable and non-controversial, even if you think Freud was a charlatan, as PoC seems to. Right now, there is the one quote from W.H. Auden (that was added against PoC's objections by the editor he called in to comment), but otherwise little to reflect Freud's very sizable impact on modern art. That impact is not a value judgment, but just historical fact, and I don't see how it has any bearing on the validity debate, except that it shows he has been taken seriously by some very smart and accomplished people. Similarly, I think the article ought to notice the change in the public view of childhood as having an extraordinary impact on adult life, a big sociological change which owes to Freud, or to notice words that have entered common parlance from the domain of psychoanalysis: "defense mechanism", "defensive", "denial," "rationalization", "anal", etc. Again, this is just historical fact, not value judgment, and it seems all this has been neglected or even suppressed due to anti-Freud bias. I can provide sources of course should any of this be allowed into the article.Hypoplectrus (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not recall having objected to Eric Kandel's views being mentioned somewhere in this article. I did object to them being mentioned in the lead, but that is another matter. If I moved Kandel's views to the end of the science section, that is because that is where they logically belong - Kandel made his comments after most of the other people mentioned in that section, and there was no valid reason why they should have been placed at its beginning. The Auden quote is not something that I would have added myself, but I don't especially care whether it is there or not, and have never tried to remove it. Hypoplectrus would do well to refrain from leaping to assumptions about what other editors believe about Freud or anything else, something which is, in any case, not relevant. Only people's edits matter. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hypoplectrus: I agree that Freud's influence on artists, films, etc, is worthy of inclusion in the article. Again, you are right that there has been a change in the public view of childhood as having an extraordinary impact on adult life largely as a result of the popularisation of Freud's ideas, though this raises a host of questions, such as whether the public perception is the same as what Freud regarded as central (e.g., castration anxiety, "the severest trauma of [a man's] life"), or the extent that the popular view is valid, let alone Freud's specific contentions. If you want to add paragraphs by all means propose them on the Talk page, though I suggest you omit questioning other editor's motivations, such as suggesting that PoC thinks Freud was a charlatan, which in my view is unsustainable. Esterson (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Plz remove reference to Sartre: he was NOT influenced by Freud. Sartre's cartesian philosophical position is diametrically opposed even to the concept of the Unconsciousness. S.'s own "existential psychoanalysis" is rather indebted to Bachelard and to Wilhelm Stekel to a moderate extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterBerg (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sartre was indeed influenced by Freud, and this is noted in the article itself (there is more that could have been included). It is true that Sartre had major disagreements with Freud, but many people who have had major disagreements with Freud have nevertheless been influenced by him in important ways, and Sartre was one of them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fallacy. You then should also include Karl Popper in that list. And where did Sartre state that he was influenced by Freud? Obviously he took some notice of him, as he did of about millions of others (Derrida and Lévi-Strauss even held that Sartre actually did not have any thorough knowledge of F./psychoanalysis at all). Btw. The fact that S. wrote a script on F. (for Huston) don't mean much either; it was a m/l hack, he was in debt with the IRS and merely needed the money. Imo, all good reasons for removing S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterBerg (talk • contribs) 08:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The sources used in the article indicate that Sartre was influenced by Freud. You are entitled to disagree with them if you like, but simply disagreeing with something isn't a valid reason for removing it from an article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fallacy. You then should also include Karl Popper in that list. And where did Sartre state that he was influenced by Freud? Obviously he took some notice of him, as he did of about millions of others (Derrida and Lévi-Strauss even held that Sartre actually did not have any thorough knowledge of F./psychoanalysis at all). Btw. The fact that S. wrote a script on F. (for Huston) don't mean much either; it was a m/l hack, he was in debt with the IRS and merely needed the money. Imo, all good reasons for removing S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterBerg (talk • contribs) 08:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can seen, there is only one citation in the three sentences on Sartre that is claimed to support that he was influenced by Freud: "Thomas Baldwin (1995), in Ted Honderich. ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. p. 792." (There is also an ambivalent sentence that cites Merleau-Ponty's considering Freud to be one of the anticipators of phenomenology, while Adorno argued the contrary, that Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, was Freud's philosophical opposite.)
- I don't profess to know much about Sartre's work in philosophy, but I've done a fairly thorough Google search and failed to find anything to confirm that Sartre's ideas on the human mind and emotions were influenced by Freud, though plenty about his opposition to Freud, especially the Freudian unconscious. Unfortunately I don't have access to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy to check the cited reference to Thomas Baldwin. It would be good to have a second citation on this disputed point, at least for the Talk page, though I agree it is not strictly necessary. Esterson (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source indicating Freud's influence on Sartre is the entry on Sartre in the first edition of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The relevant part of the entry reads, "In an early section of the book [eg, Being and Nothingness] Sartre launches a well-known critique of Freud's theory of the unconscious which is motivated by Sartre's claim that consciousness is essentially self-conscious. Sartre also argues here that Freud's theory of repression is internally flawed, but this argument is based on a misunderstanding of Freud. What is of more interest, however, is Sartre's attempt, towards the end of the book, to adapt some of Freud's ideas to his own account of human life, and thereby to develop an 'existential psychoanalysis' in which Freud's causal categories are replaced by Sartre's own teleological ones." That's sufficient, in my view, to show that Sartre was indeed influenced by Freud, his critical attitude to the unconscious and other aspects of Freud's work notwithstanding. I understand there is more about Sartre's view of Freud in The Cambridge Companion to Sartre; I don't have it to hand, but may be able to look it up in a library. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Freud Controversy (continued)
Having now read through the original "Freud Controversy" thread, I'd like to add a few comments to illustrate Polisher of Cobweb's point about the difficulties in dealing with material for the Freud page given that much of what is written about Freud is controversial.
Hypoplectrus wrote above: "Freud's work has aroused controversy since its inception. Philosophers like Karl Popper have asserted that psychoanalysis is not testable, while later academics in the field of scientific explanation, such as Carl Hempel, were satisfied that psychoanalytic explanations were scientific in nature." Leaving aside that a Google search fails to bring up Hempel's writings on Freud, I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science.
- Whether a Google search turns it up is irrelevant. Carl Hempel is one of the most distinguished philosophers of science of the twentieth century: See the entry on Hempel at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And see the entry on scientific explanation, which names Hempel as the leading architect of the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation. Sorry to disappoint, but Hempel was very important and he regarded psychoanalysis as testable according to the norms of scientific explanation; more than that, he said that psychoanalytic explanations not only could qualify but did qualify as scientific in the same sense that historians and detectives could make scientific explanations despite a lesser degree of certainty than a physicist deals with. Esterson's speculative statement "I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science" just disregards Carl Hempel. As such, it is not fair and reflects more bias against Freud.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hypoplectrus: It's a fair point that my failure using a Google search is irrelevant if there are sources that validate what you say about Hempel. Nevertheless, your writing that "later academics" in the field of scientific explanation, such as Hempel, were satisfied that psychoanalytic explanations were scientific in nature gives the impression that there were numerous such philosophers who were of similar mind, or perhaps even something like a consensus. It is fine to cite a single philosopher, but not to give the impression there were numerous eminent philosophers of like mind without citations. It is equally possible to cite eminent philosophers who took an opposite view, e.g, Ernest Nagel [4] and Sidney Hook [5] (See Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook, 1959.) Another philosopher, Clark Glymour [6] has written a book chapter with the title "How Freud Left Science" [in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, eds. Cohen and Lauden, 1983]. Glymour writes: "Faced [in 1897-98] with the evidence that the methods on which almost all of his work relied were in fact unreliable, Freud had many scientifically honorable courses of action available to him. [...]. He did none of these things, or others one might conceive. Instead he published The Interpretation of Dreams to justify by rhetorical devices the very methods he had every reason to distrust."
- You write that my saying I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science "just disregards Carl Hempel". How can my statement that allows for at least a few philosophers be taken as disregarding any specific philosopher? As for your following (final) sentence, it gives the impression that if an editor disagrees with your views it is evidence that he or she is biased against Freud (even if you did not intend to imply that). Esterson (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"[PoC is] right that Grunbaum has questioned whether psychoanalytic theories are testable. He concluded that they were testable, but that they had not been adequately tested."
"Adolf Grunbaum criticized Freud's studies of neurotic patients because he thought it possible that Freud had influenced them by suggesting to them what he wanted to hear."
This is a rather toned-down account of Grunbaum's views. He not only argued that what he regarded as the central element of Freud's work that could be regarded as scientific was disconfirmed, he also argued that Freud's fundamental clinical procedure was irredeemably flawed because it failed to refute the suggestibility challenge. (The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, Part 1, Chapter 2; "Critique of Psychoanalysis", chapter 14 in Who Owns Psychoanalysis? [Karnac 2004].)
But this discussion illustrates again the problems inherent in any article about Freud. Grunbaum's claim that psychoanalysis is (at least in some regards) scientific has been strongly challenged. Robert Wilcocks, for instance, has argued that Grunbaum "has fallen into the trap of 'narrative compliance'" in his assessment of Freud, i.e., "he takes the narrator (Freud) at his word" (Maezel's Chess Player: Sigmund Freud and the Rhetoric of Deceit [1994]) . This has been argued more specifically by others (e.g., Frank Cioffi) in rebuttals of Grunbaum's contention that psychoanalytic theories, in general, are testable. For example, Grunbaum's list of examples contra Popper (Part 1, Chapter 1 of Foundations) has been challenged on grounds related to Wilcocks's criticisms of Grunbaum's approach to Freud's writings.
My point here is that for every citation of writers on Freud there is almost always a challenge either to the significance of the citation, or more often, by the citing of writers taking a different position. This, as PoC has said, constitutes a real problem for the Freud page.
Further examples: Hypoplectrus defended his intended inclusion of Freud's assertions that his critics were biased against his theories for emotional reasons by writing, "The line does not say whether they were or weren't, it merely states that he found them biased…" This gives an impression of a considered view by Freud after serious examination of his critics' arguments, when in fact almost everyone commenting on the several assertions (and they are merely assertion) by Freud along these lines has noted that is used as a notorious device (they are purportedly demonstrations of his critics' "resistance", a manifestly circular argument). Regardless of how you view what I have written here, it shows that the sentence in question could not be left unchallenged.
Another point: PoC wrote: "Your addition stated that Freud and psychoanalysis remain influential in American psychiatry. I produced a source stating the exact opposite." Hypoplectrus replied: "We had gone back and forth about Freud's relevance to modern psychiatry. You say he is irrelevant..."
In this instance it seems to me that Hypoplectrus is purportedly rebutting PoC when in fact the latter is not saying that Freud is irrelevant to American psychiatry, only that the influence of psychoanalysis has substantially declined (and, as PoC says, there is plenty of other quotable evidence beyond that of Shorter's History of Psychiatry and others he cites). So it helps in a conflict to make sure that a challenge to an assertion is addressing the precise issue in question.
In spite of the above, I don't really want all these items to be gone over again. I only want to emphasize the difficulties in maintaining balance in the case of such a controversial figure. Esterson (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Science section
Quote from article:
- Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg concluded in 1977, on the basis of their analysis of research literature, that Freud's concepts of oral and anal personality constellations, his account of the role of Oedipal factors in certain aspects of male personality functioning, his formulations about the relatively greater concern about loss of love in women's as compared to men's personality economy, and his views about the instigating effects of homosexual anxieties on the formation of paranoid delusions were supported. They also found limited and equivocal support for Freud's theories about the development of homosexuality. However, they found that several of Freud's other theories, including his portrayal of dreams as primarily containers of secret, unconscious wishes, as well as some of his views about the psychodynamics of women, were either not supported or contradicted by research. Reviewing the issues again in 1996, they concluded that much experimental data relevant to Freud's work exists, and supports some of his major ideas and theories.[6]
All this sounds rather impressive ("research literature"), and even authoritative, but I'd like to add a caveat or two. Paul Kline, in his own book examining the experimental testing of Freudian theories, states that “in our view Fisher and Greenberg [1977] are quite uncritical: they accept results at their face value with almost no consideration of methodological inadequacy” (Fact and Fantasy in Freudian Theory, Second Edition 1981, p. vii). Likewise, in a highly critical review of the Fisher and Greenberg book, Frank Cioffi argues that "One of the reasons for their failure to see the extent of the gap between the evidence they adduce and the conclusions they derive from it is that they have adopted the ill-advised practice of using the same term in both its natural literal sense and its Freudian-theoretical sense" (Times Higher Education Supplement, 12 August 1977). Edward Erwin focuses on the items claimed by Fisher and Greenberg to have been validated (see above) and finds them wanting on a number of grounds (A Final Accounting: Philosophical and Empirical Issues in Freudian Psychology, MIT, 1996, pp. 181-188).
I propose that at the end of the passage quoted above is added something along the lines of the following:
(Fisher and Greenberg's conclusions, however, have been strongly criticised for alleged methodological deficiencies by Paul Kline[ref], Frank Cioffi[ref], and Edward Erwin[ref].) Esterson (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Almanacer has made some changes (including moving passages), one of which I take issue with:
- Cioffi has also been a critic of the work of Fisher and Greenberg.[164] In response to Cioffi, the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent. [Ref. Levy, Donald Freud Among the Philosophers, Yale University Press 1996, pp. 45-56.]
First, for reasons I have outlined above ("Science Section"), the reference to Cioffi in relation to the Fisher and Greenberg contentions should come immediately after the latter passage. More importantly, Almanacer has provided what I think is a misleading statement. Following as it does immediately on the statement that Cioffi has been a critic of the work of Fisher and Greenberg, the sentence reads as if Levy has replied to Cioffi's criticisms. This is not the case. The criticisms in question come in a chapter in Levy's book devoted to "Wittgenstein's Critique of Freud" (and the references to Cioffi are almost all citations of a chapter in a book published in 1970, well before Fisher and Greenberg published their volumes). It is in my view inappropriate to post details of a criticism of Cioffi's arguments in relation to Wittgenstein and Freud as if it were related to Cioffi's criticisms of Fisher and Greenberg's contentions about experimental claims. If a writer is cited in specific circumstances, to allow a citation to (and details of) criticism of that person's views in relation to entirely different writings opens the way to an almost endless trail of point/counterpoint. Esterson (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have amended the wording and added the relevant refs and created a new para to address your concerns. Levy’s position re critics of psychoanalysis as of his 1996 book is that “No good philosophical arguments against it have been produced, and much empirical evidence supports it” (p. 172) notwithstanding Cioffi’s or any other later work up to that date. Thus Levy’s criticism many be reasonably assume to continue to apply, especially with regard to scientific credibility which is the issue Cioffi has with Fisher and Greenberg. I note the references you cite re the latter all (with the possible exception of Erwin) predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years. So you also need to make clear that their earlier work is under review if you propose to change the text.Almanacer (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- As Almanacer has amended material relating to my detailed discussion of Fisher and Greenberg's claims (see above, "Science section") without discussing it on this page, I have subsequently amended his changes. As I noted above, the lengthy passage in question comes across as authoritative, and a balancing sentence is appropriate immediately following it. (Fisher and Greenberg [1977] even include unpublished doctoral dissertations among the studies they treat!)
- Almanacer: You write: "I note the references you cite re the latter all (with the possible exception of Erwin) predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years. So you also need to make clear that their earlier work is under review if you propose to change the text."
- You are absolutely right here. I had intended to make this clear, but forgot to do so when writing the draft sentence. However, it is now included in my emendation. I think it is worth pointing out here that in their 1996 book Fisher and Greenberg make no attempt to address Kline's concerns (see above), instead retorting (p. 6) that "it is not the mission of one who reviews the scientific literature pertinent to Freud's work to be highly critical (as exemplified by Kline, 1981) of every individual study (which any experimental researcher can easily manage), but rather to look at overall trend across multiple reports." In other words, never mind the quality of the studies, just look at the quantity! If this were a statement about medical studies it would be shot down in flames.
- Now to the paragraph on Levy. You write that Levy wrote: “No good philosophical arguments against [psychoanalysis] have been produced, and much empirical evidence supports it.” To me that is pretty damning – of Levy. To suggest that among the numerous philosophers who have criticised psychoanalysis there are simply no good arguments, and claim tout court that much empirical evidence supports it does not suggest Levy is very open to serious consideration of arguments against his position on Freud. I also note that your paragraph provides what you describe as Levy's criticism of Cioffi's earlier [1970] account of Freud's work. In fact the chapter in question is not "an account of Freud's work", but a discussion of certain features of it. Cioffi has published numerous papers on Freud other than the two Levy cites which are not within the compass of his limited criticisms of Cioffi in the context of Wittgenstein's writings on Freud. To make these relatively few points carry the burden of the all round rejection of Cioffi's writings on Freud (see Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, Open Court, 1998) as you have done is to greatly overstate the range and general validity of his criticisms of Cioffi.
- Esterson (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to differ on Cioffi vs Levy and let readers make their own mind up on the basis of the sources we have both provided. And let's not have an unecessary proliferation of section headings.Almanacer (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not place the mention of Fisher and Greenberg's views in the article because I necessarily agree with their conclusions; I added it because Fisher and Greenberg are well known researchers. The legacy section needs to include a range of different views to properly inform readers, and I have in fact included much material there that I don't personally agree with. Although I don't wish to enter into an argument about it (both because it's not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page, and also because I am not really an expert on these matters) I am rather skeptical of the merits of Fisher and Greenberg's views, and those of Kline as well, for that matter. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Break 1
Having reviewed Almanacer's edits more carefully, I have to agree with some of the concerns Esterson has expressed above. The changes made may have been well-intentioned, but their effect is to confuse matters, and they seem to involve original research. Almanacer changed the article to make it say that Fisher and Greenberg maintain their views, "In opposition to Popper’s unfalsifiability thesis." That makes it sound as though Fisher and Greenberg argue against Popper, which they do not. Neither the 1996 book by Fisher and Greenberg used as a source in the article, nor Fisher and Greenberg's earlier 1977 study, even mentions Popper's name. I am accordingly going to undo some of Almanacer's changes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almanacer writes: "And let's not have an unecessary proliferation of section headings." Sorry, I shouldn't have made a fresh heading – it's just that I thought it might be a longish discussion and wanted to separate it out.
- "I think we'll have to agree to differ on Cioffi vs Levy and let readers make their own mind up on the basis of the sources we have both provided."
- Frankly I don't think that is good enough. Virtually no readers are likely to take the considerable trouble to get hold of the articles/books (and Cioffi's chapter in question is in a specialised book from 1970), so they have to rely on the Wikipedia passage for accuracy. I am perfectly happy with your tidying up process that involved transferring some items and elimination of repetition. However when you transferred the sentence citing Cioffi's criticism of Fisher and Greenberg (1977), you removed it from its appropriate place, and put it at the start of a fresh paragraph. You then followed it with a sentence about Levy that gave the impression that he had responded to Cioffi's criticism of F&G. It is only because I am familiar with both Cioffi's writings and those of Levy on Freud that I was able to get that corrected. But as I have noted above, the amendment still leaves misconceptions:
- In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s work [ref], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent [ref].
- To reiterate: Here you have given a generalised critique of Cioffi's views on Freud from Levy as if it was an all round criticism of Cioffi's writings on Freud. In fact the chapter by Cioffi from 1970 is not "a critical account of Freud's work", but a discussion of a particular aspect of his work, and Levy's criticisms are specifically in relation to Wittgenstein views of Freud (Cioffi was also a Wittgenstein scholar). Cioffi has, since 1970, written a considerable number of wide-ranging journal articles and book chapters on Freud unrelated to Wittgenstein, and to give the impression that Levy's criticisms comprise a general criticism of Cioffi's writings as you have done is highly misleading.
- Additionally: I have checked through the "Science" section and whenever there are citings of rebuttals to writers on Freud they relate to specific issues. Nowhere is there a general criticism of a writer in the manner you have written of Levy on Cioffi. And rightly so, otherwise we could have endless additions where editors add citings of general criticisms of supporters/critics of Freud. This is not a Wiki page on Cioffi and I suggest that your sentence on Levy and Cioffi, as well as being misleading, is out of place on the Freud page and should be deleted. Esterson (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that it would be best to remove this material for now, until and unless agreement is reached to include it in some form. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have now made the Levy critique of Cioffi more specific with regard to the substantive issues he addresses in the latter’s work. I have also restored the quote marks to avoid any doubt about the strength of Levy’s assertion (cf the Kandel or Kline quotes). My point re Popper and Fisher/Greenberg was that their work was undertaken from a standpoint opposed to Popper’s, not that they directly engaged with it. Almanacer (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almanacer amended sentence, presumably made more specific in response to what I wrote above, now reads:
- In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s theorisation and method of interpretation of the unconscious thought processes at work in dreams [refs. "Wittgenstein’s Freud" (1969); "Freud and the Idea of a Pseudo-Science" (1970)], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that in this respect his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that as a result his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent.
- I think it is clear that Almanacer is determined to get Levy's criticisms of Cioffi into the Freud article. He evidently bases this latest version on a few passages in Levy's book, and has not actually checked Cioffi's 1970 chapter. Had he done so he would find that in a 27 page essay there is only a single allusion to a dream interpretation, not a "critical account" of Freud's dream theory. (There is also a mention of dreams in a single sentence which simply asks how one should categorise Freud's transactions with his patients, with a list that includes patients' dreams.) Again, when Levy (p. 46) criticises a statement of Cioffi's from "Wittgenstein's Freud" (1969) it has nothing to do with dream theory, but with Cioffi's writing in regard to Freudian interpretations in general that their acceptance by the analysand is not in itself validation of the interpretation. The only other place in Cioffi's 1969 article where he discusses dream theory is in regard to the theory that all dreams are wish-fulfilments and to Freud's means of dealing with counter-examples. To imply, as Almanacer does, that the few pages in Levy's book that cite Cioffi constitute an all round critique of the latter's writings on Freudian dream theory, let alone of his views on the nature of "resistance and transference", is grossly misleading.
- On a more minor point, Almanacer describes Levy as a Freud scholar. A Google search fails to confirm that description. His first writing specifically on Freud in 1987 appears to be his article ("Grunbaum's Freud") in response Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis and is limited to a single topic, that of the latter's "Necessary Condition Thesis" in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. The only other writing of Levy's on Freud would seem to be his Freud Among the Philosophers (1998), a book limited to a discussion of how philosophers have treated Freud's writings. To my mind this hardly justifies his being called a Freud scholar, which implies someone who has made Freud studies a major element in his output. I suggest this has been added to his description to supposedly give extra weight to his criticisms of Cioffi. Esterson (talk)
One further crucial point. What is such a citation of criticism of Cioffi doing there at all? Cioffi is only mentioned in the article in relation to two items, the experimental testing of Freud's theories and his opposition to Grunbaum's view of the testability of psychoanalysis and on alleged flaws in Grunbaum's Freud exegesis. A citation of a rebuttal to these references would be fine, but now that the Levy criticism has had be removed from its misleading association with Cioffi's experimental testing citation, it is a stand alone citation of criticism of Cioffi's wider views on Freudian theory that have not been referenced in the article. As I wrote above, this would be fine for a Cioffi Wiki page, but is entirely inappropriate for the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Having questioned the content of the passage I added on Levy, which I amended in response to your comments, you are now challenging its right to be included at all. I find it bizzare that you think it’s OK to have Cioffi pointing to “flaws” in Grunbaum’s defence of Freud’s “testability” but “entirely inappropriate for the Freud page” to have Levy pointing out flaws and inadequacies in Cioffi’s reading of Freud when the verifiability of Freud’s theories, far from having “not been referenced in the article”, is the substantive issue in both exchanges
- As to your mistaken/misleading remark on the “single allusion to a dream interpretation” in Cioffi’s “Freud and the Idea of Pseudo-Science”, Levy cites pp. 490, 491, 496 (extensive passage quote), 497 and 498 of Cioffi’s text as containing passages that are directly pertinent to his critical account of Freud’s analysis of dreams. And please note I have now presented Levy’s substantial eleven page critque of Coiffi as with respect to the "earlier" works of Cioffi Levy cites, not as an “all round critique”.
- Please note that the neutrality of the current article and the Science section in particular have already been called into question, (given that in this section critical opinion currently outweighs Freud advocacy - see above). Attempting to removing Levy’s reply to a leading proponent of the “Freud the pseudo-scientist” standpoint will only add to these concerns.
- In my view Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi (according to your previous attribution) is. We're in POV territory here.Almanacer (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almanacer, in reply to your comments above, I do realize that it wasn't your intention to suggest that Fisher and Greenberg were arguing against Popper. Unfortunately, anyone who read what you added to the article, and who wasn't already familiar with the subject, would probably get the idea that they were doing just that. Given that Fisher and Greenberg weren't actually arguing against Popper, we shouldn't use language that suggests that they were. In regards to your dispute with Esterson, I would again suggest that the disputed material be removed for now, until agreement is reached to include it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alamacer: You cite Levy citing pp. 490, 491, 496 (extensive passage), 497 and 498 as if it refutes what I wrote above. In fact it does not. Pages 490 and 491 do not mention dreams, they discuss what Cioffi describes as "spurious allusiveness" in Freud's explanatory procedures in general. Page 496 and the top of p. 497 relate to a single dream interpretation that I mentioned above. (And I was right to say that this is the "only allusion to a dream interpretation" – it is the only specific dream interpretation mentioned in Cioffi's article.) Page 497 doesn't discuss dreams, it discusses Freud's interpretation of somatic symptoms. On page 498 I acknowledge that there is another mention of dreams in addition to the passing mention in a general sentence that I referred to above, though that single paragraph is again not specifically about dreams, but about the whole range of Freudian explanatory procedures including symptoms, errors, memories and associations.
- You write: "And please note I have now presented Levy’s substantial eleven page critque of Coiffi as with respect to the 'earlier' works of Cioffi Levy cites, not as an 'all round critique'."
- First, just to clarify, I wrote that your Wikipedia sentence in question reads as an "all round critique of Freud's dream theory" (and it is to dream theory that your sentence specifically alludes). As I have pointed out, Cioffi's comments on dreams form only an extremely small part of his 1970 chapter, and even less in his 1969 "Wittgenstein's Freud". Since then he has written a considerable number of articles on Freud's writings, and even if it were appropriate for the Freud page, a critique solely based on a few paragraphs written over 40 years ago in relation to such a prolific writer on Freud is hardly worthy of citation. Furthermore, you are happy to cite the critique though you evidently have no direct knowledge of the writings to which Levy is alluding!
- In your first paragraph above you fail to grasp the central point. Yes, it is okay to have Cioffi point to "flaws" in Grunbaum's argument because the citation relates to a specific point (testability) on which Grunbaum has been cited (earlier in the paragraph) in relation to Freud's empirical claims. And, contrary to what you say, Cioffi's 1970 chapter has nothing to say about testability, it is essentially about the plausibility of Freudian contentions. (You should also note that "verifiability" is not the same thing as "testability".) I repeat: On the Freud page you will not find any citing of criticisms of writers that is not directly related to those writers views on a specific aspect of Freud's work. Grunbaum is cited as criticising Popper's critique of Freud on the issue of testability. Is it therefore okay to separately cite someone criticising Grunbaum's rebuttals of Freud's theory of dreams? Richard Webster's critique of Freud is cited in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. Perhaps we could have a citing of a critique of other aspects of Webster's views on Freud? Following the passage on Fisher and Greenberg is a reference to Paul Kline's criticisms of those author's 1977 book. Shall we now also include a criticism of Kline's own work on such studies (e.g. by Erwin and by Eysenck & Wilson)? No, because the article is not about Grunbaum, not about Webster, not about Kline, and not about Cioffi, it is about Freud. On the other hand, your sentences about Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum that follow that on Cioffi are fine, because they relate to Grumbaum's views on a specific aspect of Freud's work cited earlier in the same section.
- You write: "In my view Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi (according to your previous attribution) is. We're in POV territory here." Yes, points of view are fine, as long as they are backed up by evidence. Levy has written one article on one single aspect of Grunbaum's critique of Freud (the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis). In addition he has written one book solely devoted to philosophers' writings on Freud. On the other hand Cioffi has been writing articles (in scholarly journals and elsewhere), book chapters and book reviews on Freud for over 40 years right up to his death earlier this year. In his writings Cioffi displays an extraordinary knowledge of Freud's writings and of writings on Freud going back to the early part of the twentieth century. To suggest that Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi is frankly absurd.
- I have given above solid reasons why your paragraph is inappropriate, as well as repeatedly rebutting by close documentation several assertions you have made on this page. To appeal to the concerns about the neutrality of the Freud page when you posted your passage about Levy on Cioffi without consulting the Talk page despite your evident ignorance of the Cioffi writings that Levy criticised is a bit much. Esterson (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- In accord with Polisher of Cobweb's suggestion, I have deleted the sentence on Levy on Cioffi. I have also transferred the sentences on Levy's criticism of Grunbaum's view relating to the testability of psychoanalysis to where is rightly belongs, with the other criticisms of Grunbaum's testability thesis in the previous paragraph. Esterson (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Break 2
The appropriate response to the passage in question is further editing, not removal. I have presented a summary of Levy on Cioffi fully referenced by a reputable author with a leading academic publishing house. I have backed this up on the talk page with specific page by page detail and amended in the text in respose to Estertons concern’s re representing it as an “all round critique”. If he remains unhappy with my summary let him edit it or present further examples of Cioffi’s work which addresses Levy’s critique.
His claim that the content is “entirely inappropriate for the Freud page” when the topic in debate is Freud’s scientific credibility or “pseudo-science” in Freud as Cioffi puts it is absurd. The passage in question links directly with the preceding para as it discusses both Cioffi and Grunbaum. (I will be adding more re the latter in due course). There are no reasonable grounds for its removal.
I agree the 2008 University review sentence should be removed (the abstract on the JAPA website makes it clear its on American universities) from the lead and take your point re Popper/Fisher Greenberg. Almanacer (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- First, the fact that the citation is fully referenced, etc, is a non sequitur. You say you have backed up what you have written, but you have failed to address my closely documented rebuttals (including in relation to your revisions), no doubt because you are ignorant of Cioffi's writings in regard to which you are happy to cite a critique.
- You write: "[Esterson's] claim that the content is 'entirely inappropriate for the Freud page' when the topic in debate is Freud’s scientific credibility or “pseudo-science” in Freud as Cioffi puts it is absurd."
- The two citations to Cioffi on the Freud page have nothing directly to do with Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 chapter, nor on the general issue of pseudoscience. One is specifically on Fisher and Greenberg's claims to have validated Freudian empirical claims. The other is a criticism of a specific element in Grunbaum's writings, his claim that Freud was hospitable to refutation. Neither citation is to Cioffi's writings on pseudoscience. Levy's criticisms of Cioffi have nothing whatever to do with either of these points, or to the writings of Cioffi that are cited – and that is why your posting is inappropriate. Your suggestion that I counter your sentence on Levy's criticisms of Cioffi with the citing of other writings of Cioffi that address Levy's technique illustrates that you have failed to grasp the central point I made above. The article is about Freud, including citing of responses to Freud on specific issues, including possibly citing rebuttals to those responses on the specific issue in question. It would be inappropriate for me cite other writings of Cioffi's that deal with the issues Levy raises because the page is about Freud, not Levy's disputing Cioffi on an issue not directly related to the citations of Cioffi.
- Although the subject matter that started this dispute was already on the Talk page, you posted your original disputed sentence without consultation. I also think it would have been courteous to propose your amendment in response to criticism on the Talk page so it could be discussed before posting it on the Freud page. You have also failed to address much of what I have written above, other than your statement that you "have backed up" your posting on the Talk page with "specific page by page detail", ignoring that I have rebutted most of your "detail" by close documentation from Cioffi's actual article. (I appreciate you are unable to counter my rebuttals as you have no knowledge of the writings in question, being happy to justify your position despite this serious limitation.)
- In the light of your failure to discuss on the Talk page beforehand the postings in question despite the fact that the subject matter was already an ongoing discussion, and the fact that another editor had advocated removing the posting pending further discussion, I shall revert your reversion. Esterson (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just had a chance to look at your latest post and its clear you fail to appreciate the distinction between " the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation" (and also of eg symptoms) - which is what I wrote - and dreams themselves, the former being the topic Levy considers at greater length in realtion to the pages cited from Cioffi. As the quotation I have given makes clear, Levy's objective is to rebutt philosophical objections to Freud with reference to the debate on empirical evidence (testability)and this is evident thoughout the book, including in the passages I referenced. As for scholarship, I think its quality not quantity that matters. (BTW do you need to declare a personal interest in this deabte - I note Cioffi's co-author shares the same name?). Let's await futher contributions on this topic before removing the passage in question which, I remind you, if of reputable academic provenance and full referenced. So far we've only had one contribution. Almanacer (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- You write: "Levy's objective is to rebutt philosophical objections to Freud with reference to the debate on empirical evidence (testability) and this is evident thoughout the book, including in the passages I referenced." Leaving aside that Levy's discussion of philosophers on Freud goes far wider than references to "the debate on empirical evidence", you have failed to address the fact that I have previously pointed out that Cioffi's articles in question do not discuss the testability of Freud's contentions, they are purely about their plausibility. (Rather than addressing my rebuttals you simply repeat what you have written before.)
- You write: "I've just had a chance to look at your latest post and its clear you fail to appreciate the distinction between "the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation" (and also of eg symptoms) - which is what I wrote - and dreams themselves, the former being the topic Levy considers at greater length in realtion to the pages cited from Cioffi."
- Rather than getting into this kind of detail (which would not be relevant to the central issue of the inappropriateness of the sentence in question for the Freud page), I'll just point out that your comment fails to address the fact that what "Levy considers at greater length" bears no relation to the very specific Cioffi citations on the Freud page. (See above for why this is the basic issue.)
- You write: "BTW do you need to declare a personal interest in this deabte - I note Cioffi's co-author shares the same name?" This seems to be some kind of misreading. I have never co-authored an article by Cioffi, nor has he co-authored an article with someone of the same name. In fact to my recollection Cioffi has never co-authored an article on Freud among his considerable list of publications. Esterson (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I note that you have reinstated your original passage, despite your failure to discuss your postings beforehand and the views of two editors on the Talk page. And despite the fact that your citing of Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum's views on the testability of Freud's theories is once more not in the appropriate place (in the previous paragraph where Grunbaum's views are presented, along with two other citations of criticisms of these views). Esterson (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'll just add that Almanacer's two references to Levy's writings in the paragraph in question perfectly illustrate my point. The criticism of Grunbaum directly relates to the reference to Grunbaum in the previous paragraph, which is why it should be there along with the citing of two other criticisms of Grunbaum on the same issue. But this does not apply to the citing of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi, as they do not relate to the Cioffi citations in the previous paragraph. Esterson (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
PoC has reinstated the passage on Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum's testability thesis to where it logically belongs, i.e., immediately relating to the information about Grunbaum and together with two other critiques of Grunbaum's thesis. I can see no reason for any rational objection to this.
It also has the advantage that the sentence to which I have taken issue can be separated from the paragraph in which it was previously embedded:
- In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s theorisation and method of interpretation of the unconscious thought processes at work in dreams [Refs. Cioffi 1969; Cioffi 1970], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that in this respect his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that as a result his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent.[Ref. Levy 1996]
This should enable what is clearly going to be an ongoing discussion to become more focused for the benefit of latecomers to the proceedings. To reiterate the central point: The only previous citations of Cioffi are to his criticism of Fisher and Greenberg's claims about the experimental validation of Freudian theories, and his criticism of Grunbaum's Freud exegesis (" 'Exegetical Myth-Making' in Grünbaum's Indictment of Popper and Exoneration of Freud"). The cited chapter by Levy on Wittgenstein that contains criticisms of items in a Cioffi article and book chapter from 1969 and 1970 respectively makes no allusion either to the experimental testing of Freud's theories (as exemplified in F&G's book), nor to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum's Freud exegesis. It therefore cannot logically be placed either in the "Grunbaum" paragraph as a response to Cioffi's criticism of Grunbaum, or in the passage on F&G's claims about the experimental testing of Freud's theories. This means it would stand alone as a criticism of specific points in (mostly) Cioffi's 1970 chapter, even though that chapter has not been cited previously. In other words it would be a gratuitous reference to criticism of writings of Cioffi's that do not bear on his cited topics. I would hope it should be obvious that it would not be appropriate for me to cite a criticism of (say) Richard Webster's writings on Freud that do not bear on the specific point on which Webster has been cited. The same applies to Levy's criticisms of specific aspects of Cioffi's approach to Freud that do not bear on the specific points on which Cioffi has been cited. Esterson (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Esterton continued gloss on Levy vs Cioffi has now become an exercise in obfuscation, at worse, pedantry at best and relies on waving away ("rather than getting into this kind of detail") my reminding him the passage refered to " the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation". His "closely argued" case consists of an irrelevant totting up mentions of specfic dream analyses in Cioffi's text, though he now acknowledges he didn't even do this accurately. For Levy it is unconscious thought processes, "associative links" and Cioffi's characterisation of them as "spurious allusions", that are the issue, not their specific manifestation. Clearly Esterton is uncomfortable with (and offers no rejoinder to) Levy's charge of confusion and incoherence against Cioffi, unsurprisingly so since his own work is cited in the article in tandem with Cioffi's. What we have then is an author obviously in close agreement with Cioffi responding to criticism of the latter's work not with a further edit but by removing sourced material - the passage critical of Cioffi - from the article on the manifestly false grounds that Cioffi 1970 article and Levy's response doesn't raise the issue of testability ( Levy shows that it does p46, 51 ) in a manner pertinent to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum.
- Rather than edit war over the deleted passage I will be resummarising Levy's objections to Popper, Cioffi, and Grunbaum in due course. I didn't/don't see this as a "major edit" meriting prior consultation - it is just adding a valid viewpoint in an area of controversy.
- Almanacer, if you are considering restoring material to the article that has been disputed in the past, and which consensus for including in the article was never reached, I really think that does need further discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Break 3
Almanacer: The reason I refrained from "getting into this kind of detail" was because we had already spent far too much time going into details about the 1970 Cioffi chapter (which it is quite clear you haven't even seen) when it had no relevance to the either of the Cioffi citations earlier on the Freud page (the only reason why a citing of a critique of Cioffi would have been appropriate).
You write:
- His "closely argued" case consists of an irrelevant totting up mentions of specfic dream analyses in Cioffi's text, though he now acknowledges he didn't even do this accurately.
I was not totting up the mentions of dream analyses (of which there was only a single one on a specific dream), I was rebutting your claims about the article (made entirely on the basis of inference – or should I say guesses – from Levy's book chapter). And I had the honesty to mention a second allusion on one page to Freudian interpretation in a list that included dreams that I had missed on my first count, though as you don't have the chapter you would never have known this had I not mentioned it.
You write:
- Clearly Esterton is uncomfortable with (and offers no rejoinder to) Levy's charge of confusion and incoherence against Cioffi, unsurprisingly so since his own work is cited in the article in tandem with Cioffi's.
This is getting ridiculous. We are talking about the Wikipedia Freud page, and Almanacer thinks it pertinent to get into a discussion of the validity of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 criticisms of Freud's interpretative procedures (which he hasn't even read)! Imagine how long that would go on for – for no good purpose (see below). As for your mentioning that my work is cited along with Cioffi's as if they are some way linked, they are entirely independent. My book chapter in question is limited to claims by Grunbaum that specific theory changes by Freud were motivated by empirical evidence, whereas Cioffi challenges Grunbaum in a far more wide-ranging criticism of his claims that Freud's empirical contentions were scientific in principle, and more specifically, contests his Necessary Condition Thesis assertions. The latter is the central theme of Levy's 1988 article "Grunbaum's Freud", so Levy could also be cited in tandem with Cioffi: "Both Levy and Cioffi challenge the validity of the central element in Grunbaum's vindication of Freud's scientific credentials, the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis. [refs]"
Almanacer writes:
- What we have then is an author… responding to criticism of [Cioffi's] work not with a further edit but by removing sourced material - the passage critical of Cioffi - from the article on the manifestly false grounds that Cioffi 1970 article and Levy's response doesn't raise the issue of testability ( Levy shows that it does p. 46, 51 ) in a manner pertinent to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum.
Quote: "manifestly [sic!] false grounds" – I have already pointed out on at least two occasions above that Cioffi's chapter has nothing whatsoever about testability, it is about the plausibility of certain claims made by Freud on the basis of interpretative and associative procedures. You have not produced a single quotation to back up your assertion. You claim that Levy's response raises the issue of testability (pp. 46, 51). This is frankly nonsense, and makes me begin to wonder if you even know what testability means in the context of Popper and Grunbaum's writings. The pages in question are about Freud's interpretative and associative procedures, and there is no mention of testability. Likewise, the relevant pages in Cioffi's chapter are about Freud's interpretative procedures (specifically, their plausibility). I think it is remarkable that you are still making emphatic statements about a book chapter you haven't even read, and that no amount of documented refutations has made the slightest dent in your assertions. And, contrary to your above assertion, Levy's criticism of Cioffi 1970 is not pertinent at all to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum. (Have you even read the Cioffi chapter that is cited: "'Exegetical Myth-Making' in Grünbaum's Indictment of Popper and Exoneration of Freud".? I think I know the answer to that question.)
- Rather than edit war over the deleted passage I will be resummarising Levy's objections to Popper, Cioffi, and Grunbaum in due course. I didn't/don't see this as a "major edit" meriting prior consultation - it is just adding a valid viewpoint in an area of controversy.
It is quite extraordinary that in the light of the above exchanges, and PoC's urging that you add/amend nothing on this topic without prior discussion on the Talk page, you apparently are determined to do so without any consultation. If you want to bring in Levy citations in regard to specific issues on which writers are mentioned or cited on the Freud page, then I see no objection to that. But I must point out yet again that Cioffi's criticisms of Fisher and Greenberg's 1977 book on the experimental testing of Freudian theories, and of Grunbaum's contentions on Freud's scientific credentials in his 1984 Foundations of Psychoanalysis (the only citings of Cioffi's writings) are completely unrelated to his 1970 chapter on the plausibility of psychoanalytic interpretative procedures, and likewise Levy's pages on Cioffi in his chapter on "Wittgenstein's critique of psychoanalsyis" (1996) are completely unrelated to those citations, and therefore inappropriate for the Wikipedia Freud page. Otherwise any editor would have a free hand to come up with a single author's critical discussions of aspects of the writings of any of the numerous writers mentioned or cited on the Freud page regardless of the context in which they had been cited. Esterson (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Esterson, you state "This is frankly nonsense, and makes me begin to wonder if you even know what testability means in the context of Popper and Grunbaum's writings." This is ad hominem. Better to leave out such statements, much as you have advised me. The preceding enormous battle over some few lines in the article could be avoided by adhering to a basic WP principle: let other editors add things. It's much simpler. You add your things and other people add theirs. I happen to think Cioffi carries his criticisms of Freud to an irrational extreme, but I am not repeatedy deleting them; in fact I have never attempted to delete a single line regarding Cioffi. Esterson and Polisher of Cobwebs should stop preventing other editors from adding sourced material. That is most certainly part of the reason that the article does not have a neutral POV.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I should have written "erroneous" instead of "frankly nonsense". But let's set this in context to see why I expressed it too strongly (though I think it is a stretch to describe it as ad hominem – i.e., denigrating a person's character). I had already closely examined the relevant pages in Cioffi's 1970 chapter and documented that Alamacer's contentions that it contained pages on testability was erroneous, yet he/she still came back with the same contention, this time specifying Levy (1996) pp. 46, 51. (He/she evidently hasn't actually read Cioffi 1970, otherwise he/she would have specified the pages in that chapter.) I checked the pages in Levy, and the latter's citations in Cioffi, and re-confirmed they have nothing about testability. Hence my exasperation and questioning if Almanacer even knows what testability means. I then implicitly asked for a quotation from Cioffi's chapter (or, failing that, from Levy's pages on Cioffi) to support the claim. To date there has been no response. (The reason why this matters is because Almanacer is endeavouring to show that it is appropriate to cite Levy's criticisms of Cioffi because they are related to the Cioffi citation relating to Grunbaum's arguments on the testability of Freud's theories.)
I don't know what WP principle you are referring to, but I know of none that says that editors can simply "add things" regardless of whether other editors think it accurate or appropriate.
Quote:
- You add your things and other people add theirs.
If you think this is how Wikipedia works, regardless of the content of what people add, I suggest you are mistaken.
Quote:
- I happen to think Cioffi carries his criticisms of Freud to an irrational extreme, but I am not repeatedy deleting them.
I have already answered this point below (A Vision of a Neutral Account of Freud). This has nothing to do with deleting something because an editor doesn't like it, as I have carefully explained more than once above, and again in my response to you below. It is about whether it is appropriate for an editor to provide one author's criticism of another author whose name appears on the Freud page although that criticism has nothing to do with the items regarding which the second author has been cited. To reiterate what I wrote below, this would mean it would be valid for me to add a sentence summarising Cioffi's article criticising Wollheim's book Freud (1971) although this has nothing to do with the issue on which Wollheim is cited. Or, indeed, I could add a sentence paraphrasing Erwin's critique of Levy's 1996 book (Mind, 2003, 112 (446): pp. 358-363). And so on – citing criticism of authors' writings on Freud who have been cited on the Freud page even though the criticisms have nothing to do with the topic on which the author in question has been cited could go on almost indefinitely. Esterson (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Correction: I see there already is a sentence on Grunbaum's criticism of Habermas's hermeneutic approach to Freud! (Now omitted from above.) Esterson (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Esterton's lengthy and ongoing discussion of Cioffi's 1970 paper and his rebuke to me for not having read it is irrelevant. What is at issue is what Levy says, not what he or I might think (WP:OR), about Cioffi's position in the 1970 paper. The following is part of Levy’s summary of Cioffi’s position, viz: "the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact"(p. 51) in a chapter Esterton continues perversely to maintain has “nothing to do with testability”.
- Given Hypoplectrus's recent and welcome contribution there is now no consensus, if there ever was one, nor any reasonable grounds to remove my summary of Levy vs Cioffi, which I shortly will be restoring to the article.Almanacer (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- What Levy writes (p. 51) in the context of "associative links" in full is this: "We are not in a position here to say that [a person's] dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact, the way we are with the inkblot or random objects on a table."
- 1. Levy is not summarizing Cioffi's position, he is summarising his own conclusions at the end of a lengthy paragraph (pp. 50-51). There is nothing about testing in the Cioffi passage under discussion, and certainly nothing remotely like "the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact".
- 2. If the sentence is read in full in context we can see that Levy is giving his own view that we are not in a position to say whether a dream is or is not meaningful is a testable fact.
- Taking (1) and (2) together, it ought to be evident that Almanacer's contention that it is irrelevant whether or not he/she has read the Cioffi articles under discussion (he/she evidently has not) is erroneous.
- 3. If you read the relevant cited page in Cioffi's article "Wittgenstein's Freud" (Levy 1996, p. 49, note 103; Cioffi 1969, p. 203) you will see that there is nothing about anything being testable or not testable, and certainly not about the principle of testability. In short, there is nothing in either this article, or in Cioffi 1970, that bears any relation to the Cioffi citation on the Freud page in the context of Grunbaum's views on the testability of Freudian theories, and therefore no justification for citing and paraphrasing Levy's 1996 criticisms of Cioffi 1970.
- Sorry to have to go on repeating this, but I'll continue to do so as long as editors continue to misrepresent what is in Cioffi 1969 or Cioffi 1970, or continue to fail to address the essential point I have made about the inappropriateness of a paraphrasing of Levy's 1996 arguments contra Cioffi's 1970 discussion of the plausibility of Freudian explanations. This has nothing to do with objecting to criticisms of Cioffi as has been suggested: I would, for similar reasons, object to the paraphrasing of Cioffi's criticisms of Wollheim's book Freud, because it has nothing to do with the topic on which Wollheim is cited on the Freud page. The page is about Freud, not about Wollheim, and not about Cioffi. Esterson (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I would again strongly urge Almanacer not to restore this material while it is still under dispute on the talk page. Please consider some other and more appropriate way of dealing with this situation, such as placing a request for comment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- If Alamancer were to add his proposed paraphrase of Levy's critique of Cioffi (1970) to the Freud page, I propose it should be followed by: "However, Erwin has rebutted an earlier expression of Levy's views ["Grunbaum's Freud", Inquiry, 31, 1988, pp. 193-215] relating to a major topic ("thematic affinities") in Levy's pages devoted to Cioffi in terms that lend support to Cioffi's view on this issue. [E. Erwin: "Philosophers on Freudianism: An Examination of Replies to Grunbaum's Foundations" (pp. 414-415), in Philosophical Problems in the External World: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grunbaum, eds. J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 193-215].
- In the Grunbaum paragraph, following the citing of Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum I propose the following: "However, in a review of Levy 1996 Erwin has taken issue with major aspects of Levy's critique of Grunbaum. He also contends that while Levy has interesting things to say about Wittgenstein's criticisms of Freud on the question of the mere existence of unconscious ideas, on "Freud's particular theory of the unconscious, Levy does nothing to show that Freud was right." [E. Erwin, Mind 112 (446), 2003, pp. 358-363)]
- Again, following on the proposed paraphrasing of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi 1970 could be added: "For his part, Cioffi has criticised Wollheim's 1971 book Freud, most notably Wollheim's account of Freud's clinical experiences and the notions he derived from them. [F. Cioffi, "Wollheim on Freud", Inquiry, 1972, 15, pp. 171-186.]
- If a consensus is reached on all this, I suggest that following the first citing of Richard Webster be added: "In the "Postscript" to the 1998 pocket edition of The Assault on Truth (pp. 319-327). Jeffrey Masson provides a purported rebuttal to Webster's (1996) criticisms of his key contentions about Freud's infantile seduction theory in his book Why Freud Was Wrong. However, Masson misrepresents some elements in Webster's arguments (pp. 321-322; see Webster 1996, pp. 201-204), and Cioffi has taken issue with Masson's contentions in terms that lend support to Webster's position in a review of The Assault on Truth [F. Cioffi, Times Literary Supplement, 6 July 1984]."
- From the point of view of those editors that support the inclusion of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 discussion of the plausibility of Freud's explanatory procedures, I see no reason why they should object to the above additions. More such additions could follow: for instance in the Grunbaum paragraph there is no mention of a major critique of Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis by the philosopher Thomas Nagel ["Freud's Permanent Revolution", New York Review, 12 May 1994]. No doubt other editors, with some research, could come up with critical articles on other authors referenced on the Freud page according to their proclivities and so enable it to be further extended almost ad infinitum. Esterson (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's necessary to strike a balance. The article ought to include some material about debates over Freud's legacy and the scientific merits of psychoanalysis, but not so much that it becomes totally bogged down with minor details and debates within debates. The relevant policy is due weight. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree entirely.
- "The article ought to include some material about debates over Freud's legacy and the scientific merits of psychoanalysis…": I think this is a fair description of the current Freud page
- If some editors think that the Freud page is unbalanced in favour of critics of Freud, then they are at liberty to add references to writings that support Freud in the appropriate section. But such references should be showing direct support for Freud's views, not taken as an opportunity to add a free-standing criticism of commentators on Freud. Esterson (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I have now resummarised Levy vs Cioffi in the context of his general response to criticism of Freud’s scientific credibility, avoiding direct reference to the testability issue which exercises Esterton so much to the point where he is now deliberately misrepresenting Levy’s text. (“ Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams” says Levy on p. 56 i.e. “the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact” - as I said, a summary of Cioffi’s position. Absurd to attribute it to Levy ).
I think that Levy’s viewpoint brings the article into a more equitable balance vis a vis the many Freud critics cited in the article. I agree with PoC that a balanced approach to content is what should be aimed for. Esterton’s latest proposals are not helpful in this respect. Moreover, vigorous POV pushing including the removal of sourced material critical of his standpoint by an author already allied within the article itself to one side of the debate, is highly undesirable and in conflict with WP principles as alluded to by Hypoplectrus. Almanacer (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Break 4
- In spite of the lengthy exchanges, and PoC's urging that Almanacer seeks an alternative way of engaging other editors in this dispute, he/she has gone ahead and added a whole paragraph without enabling prior discussion on this Talk page. I have checked the science section, and the only author whose work has been allotted a complete paragraph in this way is Grunbaum (and most of it is criticism of Grunbaum!), which is understandable because the publishing of his Foundations of Psychoanalysis (1984) was widely regarded as a landmark event, and resulted in an unprecedented number of responses from all sides involved in Freud studies. For instance, a special issue of Behavioral and Brain Sciences (June 1986) contained the views of 37 authors from a variety of related disciplines. Grunbaum has been involved with Freud studies for over 30 years, publishing a regular stream of books, book chapters and articles in that period. In contrast, Levy has published a single article devoted to Freud ("Grunbaum's Freud", which concentrates on a single issue in Grunbaum's Foundations, the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis on the question of whether purported clinical cures in themselves validate Freud's theories), and a single book, devoted solely to an examination of the views of a few prominent philosophers (Freud Among the Philosophers, 1996). Moreover, even the Grunbaum paragraph allots only a single sentence paraphrasing his ideas on testability, whereas Almanacer has provided five sentences outlining Levy's views. I do not believe that the views of a single minor contributor (in terms of publications devoted to Freud and the range of topics addressed) merit this kind of prominence on the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The single sentence allotted to Grunbaum's views is followed by critical responses from four cited authors. Any idea that the misconceived addition of several sentences devoted to the views of a minor player in the Freud controversies should remain unchallenged is unsustainable. It invites the following additions:
- Erwin has responded to Levy's analysis of Grunbaum, contending that in relation to the Tally Argument (mentioned on nine pages in Levy's chapter on Grunbaum), his appraisal is "riddled with mistakes". [E. Erwin, Mind 112 (446), 2003, pp. 358-363)] In an earlier discussion of responses of philosophers to Grunbaum, Erwin [E. Erwin: "Philosophers on Freudianism: An Examination of Replies to Grunbaum's Foundations" (pp. 414-415), in Philosophical Problems in the External World: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grunbaum, eds. J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 193-215] discusses the notion of "thematic affinities" in the context of Freud's interpretative procedures in a section that rebuts Levy's views in terms that lend support to those of Cioffi criticised by Levy.[J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 442-443.] Levy's contention on the basis of the examination of the views of a limited number of eminent philosophers that "No good philosophical arguments against [psychoanalysis] have been produced" is effectively a peremptory dismissal of the writings of other philosophers of eminence who have taken issue with Freud's views, for example Ernest Nagel and Sidney Hook, [Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook, Transaction, 1990 (1959): E. Nagel, pp. 38-56; S. Hook, pp. 212-224.] Esterson (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Almanacer writes: "Moreover, vigorous POV pushing including the removal of sourced material critical of his standpoint by an author already allied within the article itself to one side of the debate, is highly undesirable…"
- Almanacer once again misrepresents my reasons (expressed several times already) for opposing his proposals on adding several sentences summarising Levy's views. Also, the only place where my name is mentioned within the article is in relation to Grunbaum's views. In regard to that "debate", in general terms I side with Levy in his critical appraisal of Grunbaum's NCT thesis, as can be seen from several passages in my article "Grunbaum's Tally Argument" (History of the Human Sciences, 9 (1), 1996.) Esterson (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to come in again, but I really must respond to Almanacer's assertion that I am
- deliberately misrepresenting Levy’s text. (“Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams” says Levy on p. 56 i.e. “the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact” - as I said, a summary of Cioffi’s position. Absurd to attribute it to Levy ).
What is absurd is that you purport to know what is in Cioffi's 1969 article and 1970 chapter when you do not have them to consult, and have not even read them. The issue was about testing, and the first quotation (p. 56) you provide says nothing on that. It was the quotation containing the words "as a testable fact" (p. 51) that I was addressing when I wrote that it came at the end of a lengthy paragraph of Levy's, and was in relation to his own ideas just presented, not a summary of Cioffi's. (I note that your citing the second quote as if it immediately followed the first one misleadingly gives the impression that the second one is directly related to "Cioffi attacks…", i.e., erroneously associates the "testable" phrase with Cioffi.) There is nothing remotely like an assertion on the question of the testability of the meaningfulness of dreams on the relevant pages in Cioffi cited by Levy, nor anything about any kind of testing anywhere in either publication. If you purport to know otherwise, then I suggest you get hold of the publications and provide a quotation to back up your claim. Esterson (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm returning to this as it has occurred to me that by writing "i.e.", you are saying that "the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact" is the same as saying that dreams don't have any sense ("Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams"). But whether one believes (or does not believe) that something is meaningful is by no means necessarily the same as saying that the issue is testable – it could be argued entirely on the basis of plausibility. In any case, it is Levy (not Cioffi) who is saying in relation to his own analysis of "associative links" that "We are not in a position here [i.e., in relation to what he has just stated] to say that the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact, the way we are with the inkblot or random objects on a table." This sentence has no connection with his later one when he writes "Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams”.
Incidentally, I can find no explicit statement by Cioffi in either the article or the book chapter that he does believe tout court that dreams don't have any sense/meaning. This is an interpretation/inference on Levy's part, apparently on the basis that Cioffi refers to "the illusion of intelligibility" in relation to much dream interpretation, and in the light of Cioffi's scepticism towards the psychoanalytic procedures that purport to find specific meanings in dreams. But at one point in "Wittgenstein's Freud" (1969) Cioffi alludes to dreams "which are incontestably wish-fulfilments", in other words, he certainly accepts that some dreams have a meaning (and on the basis of a high degree of plausibility not testability). Levy seems to have translated Cioffi's scepticism towards most attempts at dream interpretation into a bald statement that "dreams are really meaningless" (p. 55), though Cioffi nowhere actually states that this is his view. Esterson (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
For Almanacer to restore this material when it is still actively being disputed on the talk page was a mistake, in my opinion. I am content to leave some more time for discussion, but if no clear reason why the addition is necessary can be established, then it should probably be removed. Almanacer's comments about Esterson personally are out of place, and I suggest that he or she needs to make more effort to assume good faith. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- To abort this endless point/counterpoint on the contents of Cioffi 1970, and pin down the issue to something Almanacer and any other editor can respond to, here is my objection to the current paragraph devoted to Levy's views.
- No author on the whole of the Freud page has been allotted so many sentences explicating his/her views in the way Almanacer has done in his Levy paragraph. The only comparable paragraph is that devoted to Grunbaum, for good reasons as I noted above – and that only contained one sentence paraphrasing Grunbaum's views. (Perhaps I should add here I happen to disagree with much that is in Grunbaum's Foundations but recognise the extraordinary impact his book had.) As I have argued, I see no justification for there being so much space given to the views of someone (Levy) who is a minor contributor to Freud studies in terms of publications and range of topics.
- In Grunbaum's case the brief paraphrase of his views is followed by references to several critical responses. Likewise, if Almanacer insists on retaining the Levy paragraph on the Freud page in its current form, I intend posting something along the lines of the following:
- Erwin has responded to Levy's analysis of aspects of Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis, contending that in relation to the Tally Argument his appraisal is "riddled with mistakes". [Ref.] Contrary to Levy's contentions on the contribution that clinical casework makes to Freud's scientific credibility, Sulloway argues that Freud's patients' associations were "not 'free' in any real sense", and agrees with Cioffi's 1970 description of Freud's interpretative procedures as comprising "persuasive but spurious links". In his critique of the "dubious evidence" to be found in Freud's published case histories, Sulloway writes of "the intellectual quicksand on which… [Freud] assembled his 'empirical' observations". [Ref.] More specifically, the psychoanalyst Patrick Mahony has observed that in his book Freud and the Rat Man he has "pointed out Freud's intentional confabulation and documented the serious discrepancies between Freud's day-to-day process notes of the treatment and his published case history". [Ref.] Esterson (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rather than add something like that, it might be a better idea to simply remove the current Levy material. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would rather wait to allow Almanacer (or any other editor) to respond to my objection just above to the inclusion of the Levy paragraph in its present form. In any case, when I deleted a previous addition by Almanacer on the grounds that, though there was an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, he/she had posted it without proposing it first for comments, he/she immediately reverted my deletion. Esterson (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Restoring the material immediately was definitely not a good thing for Almanacer to have done (that kind of behavior may be permitted under Wikipedia's rules, to an extent, but it's hardly encouraged). Almanacer has had every opportunity to respond to your objections, but has not done so. I am trying to assume good faith, but it seems questionable at this point whether he or she intends to do so. There is no reason why the additional material on Levy cannot simply be removed. The best approach to take if Almanacer continues to restore it might well be to place a WP:RFC so that the views of the larger Wikipedia community can be established. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have a different suggestion for Almanacer that might help resolve the dispute: If he/she wishes to add references to authors who support Freud, he/she can start by reducing the spelling out of Levy's views taking up five sentences. The views of two or three other authors who have written with approval on Freud's theories and clinical procedures can then be added. Here is my own suggestion for such a paragraph that addresses the concerns expressed by Almanacer and Hypoplectus while also satisfying my objections to the current Levy paragraph:
- In a detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures, Levy presents the case for their scientific validity, arguing that "Sense cannot be made of psychoanalytic interpretation apart from the psychoanalytic conception of the unconscious, and an understanding of the unconscious is not possible apart from the view of resistance (and of transference) phenomena peculiar to it." [Ref.] More generally, Westen argues for the importance of Freud's "scientific legacy" in a wide-ranging survey of the relevant literature on Freud's theory and practice.[Ref.] Freud specialists who have given a favourable account of the whole of Freud's output include Wollheim [Ref.] and Fancher [Ref.], the latter concluding that Freud arrived at "a profoundly philosophical view of man as a creature whose most basic characteristic is intrapsychic conflict".[Ref.]
I welcome the views of any editors on this proposed paragraph. Esterson (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I find myself, for a welcome change, in agreement with Estetons approach here. As he has observed there is great difficulty in making a balance of contributions in such a controversial area. Deleting sourced material as PoC suggests is unwise and unjustified in this context and contrary to WP guidelines and the assumption of good faith attempts, which he claims to endorse, of establishing a balance of viewpoints. I("he"BTW) would argue for a mention of Levy's rebuttal of Cioffi and Popper, allbeit pared down. And Levy's crit of Grunbaum should stand as a counter-balance the other crits cited Almanacer (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is a pity that Almanacer couldn't make a straight response to my suggestion without having yet another go at Polisher of Cobwebs, on the tendentious (and erroneous in my view) grounds that PoC's position has been contrary to WP guidelines and the assumption of good faith. (Good faith has never been the issue, except when you alleged that I had "deliberately" misrepresented Levy's text.)
- On the issue of Levy's criticism of Grunbaum, there is already a sentence added by you in the Grunbaum paragraph where it belongs, including a quotation from Levy.
- As I have argued repeatedly, in my view there is no justification for a reference including the citing of a Cioffi publication (1970) that has not been already cited on the Freud page, as this would open the way for editors to add critiques of the writings of any cited author regardless of the context in which that author had been cited. Please let us not go into all that again. I have bent over backwards to address your concerns, and included references to three other supporters of Freud, including, I suspect, citations to writings that you may not be familiar with. Is it not good enough for you that the addition of my proposed paragraph would add four references to authors who have written in support of Freud's procedures and theories? Esterson (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. Other than the special case of Grunbaum, and of claims regarding the experimental testing of Freudian theories, I can find no instance in the Science section of the citing of one author criticising another author's views (in fact I don't see any such citings on the rest of the Freud page). I see no reason why Levy should be regarded as an exception in this respect, and if he were to be so treated, then it would be legitimate for me to reference Erwin's criticisms of Levy's views on Grunbaum supportive of Freud, and Sulloway's statement endorsing Cioffi's views on Freud's interpretative procedures in his 1970 chapter as against Levy's criticisms of the same publication. In addition, in contrast to Levy, there is Webster's description of the 1970 Cioffi chapter as "a penetrating essay" supporting the notion that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience (a critique that, unlike Popper's, is not predicated on the notion that Freudian theses are irrefutable). This is a page for which the subject is Freud, and to allow the citings of one author commenting on another's views on Freud opens the door to any number of such additions. Esterson (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be quite clear about it, it is not necessarily contrary to Wikipedia policy to remove sourced content. It is in general discouraged, but there can also be circumstances in which it is desirable, for example, if the content is trivial, irrelevant, or for one reason or another problematic. This is covered by WP:DUE and other policies. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- The principle of "Due Weight" suffices to justify reverting the Levy paragraph as it stands. Levy has already been cited and quoted in the first response to Grunbaum. Freud commentators of far greater weight have not been given anywhere near the attention given to Levy's views in the paragraph in question. While noting that Almanacer posted it without allowing for previous discussion despite the fact that the issue was the subject of an ongoing dispute on the Talk page, in accord with PoC's suggestion above I intend to revert this paragraph, on the additional grounds of WP:DUE. I hope there will be other responses to my proposed replacement paragraph (which gives a second reference to Levy on a different topic to the first citation). Esterson (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
PoC and Esterton need to consult WP:STRUCTURE, quote: “care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.” As was pointed out by HypoC at the very start of these exchanges when he questioned the neutrality of the article the critics significantly outnumber the defenders of Freud as it stands – even with the inclusion of the Levy para. There is therefore no consensus that removal of the text under WP:DUE is called for. PoC’s is one POV amongst others; the content is an account on the Science page of the evidentiary status of Freudian theory and is problematic only from the standpoint Esterton, Cioffi et al adopt. Other content has been previously questioned as problematic from a pro-Freud standpoint without recourse to removing the questionable content from the article. Almanacer (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I am reposting the originating commment by Hypoplectrus which got lost in an archiving operation. Almanacer (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some progress was made in restoring balance to the lead. Apart from the first few lines, however, the "Science" section remains totally biased, with hardly any commentators from within psychiatry or within the sciences and almost all the sources after the first lines being avowed Freud-bashers and old references as well. It's silly that an immunologist is quoted and called out for his Nobel prize while a neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel (also a Nobel laureate) is ignored, no doubt due to the fact that the non-scientist writer(s) of this section never heard of Eric Kandel. The immunologist's comments should be stricken--unless psychiatrists are now considered authorities on immunology and vice versa.
- If the "Science" section is to remain what it now is--a free-for-all of voices in the controversy over the scientific status of psychoanalysis--then the Kandel quote I posted in previous sections should be added to the "Science" section in a prominent position. But I don't really understand why the "Science" section has the title "Science," as it really is just a log of criticisms of Freud from weak unauthoritative sources. It should be called "Criticism."
- I once again suggest that criticisms of Freud be broken out into a separate section or even a separate article so that this article can do the job of explaining who Freud was and what he did without polemical interference. Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Almanacer writes:
- As was pointed out by HypoC at the very start of these exchanges when he questioned the neutrality of the article the critics significantly outnumber the defenders of Freud as it stands – even with the inclusion of the Levy para.
- Almanacer writes:
- The paragraph I have proposed above contains strong statements of the views of four authors in support of various aspects of Freud's output, including quotations by three of them. It is difficult to see how much further I could reasonably be expected to go to address Alamanacer's concerns about what he feels is an imbalance on the Freud page short of searching for even more such commentators in support of Freud.
- As usual Almanacer has failed to address both reasons (see above) for my criticism of his Levy paragraph as posted on the Freud page, but simply reiterates that he insists on retaining it in its present form. Rather than approach the issue in a conciliatory manner, he maintains that the paragraph is problematic only from the standpoint "Esterson, Cioffi et al adopt", with the implication that any editor can legitimately add numerous sentences quoting a favoured commentator's views and reject any criticism of such a way of proceeding on the false grounds that opposition is predicated on disagreement with the views of the said commentator.
- Who "et al" refers to is obscure, though one candidate could be Frank Sulloway, who agrees with Cioffi's 1970 description of Freud's interpretative procedures as comprising "persuasive but spurious links", and argues (contrary to Levy [p. 47]) that Freud's patients' associations were "not 'free' in any real sense", and that the "dubious evidence" assembled by Freud was founded on the "the intellectual quicksand on which… he assembled his 'empirical' observations". Another could be the philosopher Edward Erwin, who wrote in the philosophical journal Mind that one section of Levy's critique of Grunbaum is "riddled with mistakes". I could, of course, add a paragraph including the views of these authors, and it would be justified if the paragraph containing an excessive (five sentences) paraphrasing of the views of a single commentator is retained -- moreover a commentator who can hardly be regarded as a major figure compared with many of the other authors cited on the Freud page.
- Given that I have striven to address Almanacer's concerns, and have gone a considerable way to satisfy them as stated originally, I shall be replacing his paragraph with one providing the views of four authors highly favourable towards Freud. If Almanacer has an objection to the new paragraph I urge him to explain his objections on the Talk page and refrain from reverting it prior to a discussion of his objections. Esterson (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
With regard to Esterton's proposed new para I have following comments:
1, I would not describe the Levy text as a "detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures". It is, rather, a response to what he regards as misunderstandings or misrepresentations of them by various authors.
2. The quote from Levy he has chosen does not link to the issue raised in the previous para in the article, the central issue of the evidentiary status of Freudian theory as put into question by the refs to Cioffi, his own work and others.
3. Comments favourable or not on "the whole of Freud's output" are not appropriate to the Science section. Almanacer (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Once again Almanacer has shown he has little regard for a conciliatory approach to disputes by deleting my paragraph immediately, before I have even had any opportunity to respond to his objections to it, while reinstating his own paragraph though he has repeatedly failed to address the reasons I have laid out above that the paragraph is inappropriate. (Leaving aside all the discussion above, I allowed more than 48 hours for comments on my proposed paragraph before deleting Almanacer's paragraph, which anyway he had posted without consultation several days ago in disregard of the fact that the topic was the matter of an ongoing dispute on the Talk page.) I shall therefore address his objections below, including an acceptance of his point (3) and the replacement of two references with two more appropriate ones as indicated below, and reinstate my paragraph which, I repeat, goes a considerable way to address his concerns as expressed at the beginning of this dispute.
- My response to Almanacer's points above:
- 1. The pages I cited in the reference are indeed a detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures, albeit in the context of other authors' views. Levy repeatedly spells out these interpretative procedures in favourable terms, providing his own positive account of their merits. Incidentally, there are not "various authors" involved in the discussions I cited, only two.
- 2. Why should the quotation from Levy I chose have to link with issues raised in the previous paragraph? (None of the other paragraphs in the Science section link directly to the previous paragraph.) The paragraph as a whole, like other paragraphs in the same section, is a stand alone one citing four authors who have published on Freud.
- 3. There is justice in your third point, though I find it of interest that you have expressed no objection to the citing of Gilbert Ryle and David Stafford-Clark making very large general claims favourable to Freud in the first paragraph of the Science section.
- In the light of your valid criticism (3) I propose to replace the sentences citing Fancher and Wollheim with the following:
- Hartmann makes the case for psychoanalysis as a scientific theory, arguing, for instance, that the richness of the data from the analytic setting makes psychoanalysis the via regia of the psychology of personality.[1] Fromm also argues for the validity of "Freud's scientific method" in his discussion of the merits and limitations of Freud's theories.[2] Esterson (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Break 5
Having seen what has happened with the science section recently, I think it would be best if all concerned left it as it is for the moment. It is not a good idea to make major changes without prior discussion. Personally, I think most of Esterson's edits improvements; if Alamancer or other editors disagree, they ought to establish a firm consensus before removing or changing them in any significant way (though I do think some copy editing could be done to make them more succinct). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reject Esterton's accusation of a non-conciliatory approach in this dispute. I amended the para on Levy on two separate occassions in response to his comments. The substantive issue here remains his removal from the article of a description of Levy's support for the evidential staus of Freudian theory in the context of previous citations of a number of authors who question it, himself included. I will be restoring the deleted passage which applies appropraite balance to the pre-existing content the neutrality of which has already been called into question (see above remarks from Hypo). If he wishes to add further remarks from Levy, Hartmann, Fromm or any other relevant source I have no objection. Almanacer (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe that your comments properly address the problems with this material, which Esterson has pointed out at length. Consequently, I have restored the passage to what it was before. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reject Esterton's accusation of a non-conciliatory approach in this dispute. I amended the para on Levy on two separate occassions in response to his comments. The substantive issue here remains his removal from the article of a description of Levy's support for the evidential staus of Freudian theory in the context of previous citations of a number of authors who question it, himself included. I will be restoring the deleted passage which applies appropraite balance to the pre-existing content the neutrality of which has already been called into question (see above remarks from Hypo). If he wishes to add further remarks from Levy, Hartmann, Fromm or any other relevant source I have no objection. Almanacer (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I had no intention of prolonging the agony by addressing Hypoplectrus's comments that Almanacer reinstated, but since he has mentioned them again, here are a few points. Leaving aside his/her inappropriate use of the term "Freud-bashers" for critics of Freud, I'm puzzled why the age of an author's criticisms of Freud on the issue of its scientific status has any relevance. Freud finished publishing by 1940, so any knowledgeable discussion of the scientific credentials of Freud's theories in the third quarter of the last century is as worthy of consideration as any that were published at later dates. On the immunologist in question, Peter Medawar, he was a major figure in the British scientific community who has written wide-ranging articles on Freud and psychoanalysis. (See in a collection of his articles Pluto's Republic.) How does Hypoplectrus know how qualified Medawar is to write knowledgeably about Freud? It is not necessary to take a lengthy course in higher education on Freud's theory and practice before one can grasp the nature of these. More generally, I have checked through the names cited in the Science section and with the possible exception of Lydiard H. Horton of whom I know nothing, all of them have written substantive works published by reputable publishers or scholarly journals on the issues on which they have been cited. If Hypoplectrus, or any other editor, wishes to add to the Science section appropriate and proportionate citings of one or another authors who support Freud's position, then let him/her do so. Esterson (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Almancer writes:
- I reject Esterton's accusation of a non-conciliatory approach in this dispute. I amended the para on Levy on two separate occassions in response to his comments.
- But (1) your amended versions did not address the central reasons why I objected to your postings. (2) Although there was an ongoing dispute, in no instance did you have the courtesy to post your amended versions on the Talk page for discussion before posting. (3) I spent a considerable time laying out my objections before reverting your posting the first time, and in the last instance, allowed plenty of time for comments on an alternative paragraph before reverting your version and replacing it by mine. In contrast, immediately mine went up, you immediately reverted them before anyone had the opportunity to discuss your intentions. That is why I described your approach as non-conciliatory.
- You cite with evident approval Hypoplectrus's concern for balance in the Science section, yet when I posted a paragraph citing the views of four authors who have published in support of the scientific credentials of Freud's theories, you immediately reverted it!
- Since you have repeatedly failed to address my central objections to your Levy paragraph, I shall repeat them here again. (i) To allow the referencing of criticisms of a particular author's writings on Freud (in this case of a book chapter not even previously cited on the Freud page) opens the way to criticisms of the writings of any other author cited, which would not only be inappropriate for a Freud page, it would potentially enable an endless extension of the page almost ad infinitum. (2) The devoting of a whole paragraph (in this instance five sentences) to one author's views does not occur for any other name in the Science section, and in the case of Levy is especially disproportionate given that he is a relatively minor player in the field of Freud studies in terms of numbers of publications devoted to Freud and the limited range of subject matter addressed in them. As it is, with my added paragraph, Levy has two citations, which seems to me sufficient. Esterson (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
PoC/Esterton - We all have to live with contributions on WP we object to but which are valid contributions according to WP rules and guidelines. In this case I don't see any reason why both contributions (mine and Esterton's) can't be included. They are complementary. With regard to Esterons restated objection re 2 there is less text on Levy than Fisher and Greenberg. Re 1, contributions need assessing on a case by case basis in accordance with WP guidelines not one's invented by EstertonAlmanacer (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that Fisher and Greenberg are allowed several sentences spelling out their conclusions on experimental testing of Freudian theories (as I acknowledged when this specific point arose before), but there is some justification in their case, as these conclusions have been cited in a huge range of publications from scholarly articles to College texts. There is no such justification in the case of Levy. Also, the claims are followed by citings to three authors who challenge the purported findings.
- You still have not addressed my point about the relatively minor role Levy has played in Freud scholarship in terms of publications (one book, one article) and the limited range of subject matter therein, i.e., the wholly disproportionate amount of space you have given to his views (a whole paragraph, five sentences). No other author discussing the issues revolving around the scientific credentials of Freudian theories (other than F&G on the specialist topic of experimental testing) has been allotted anywhere this amount of space to their views. You have thus not addressed my objection that the Levy paragraph is utterly disproportionate to the contributions he has made to Freud studies compared with a considerable number of other authors cited in the Science section. You have also failed to address the second objection I made.
- Given that you have still not addressed my objections repeated above, that you once again peremptorily and discourteously reverted my paragraph and reinstated your own without allowing me the time to respond to your comment on the Talk page, that the reverted paragraph provides references to four authors supportive of Freud in accord with the concerns expressed by you and Hypoplectrus, and that you have ignored Polisher of Cobwebs' plea that you cease reinstating your paragraph until other editors have been drawn in to express their views, I shall revert your reversion. Esterson (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Alamancer, you may feel strongly that you are in the right, but at present there are two editors who actively disagree with you (Esterson and myself), and no editors who have recently supported you on the talk page. Although content disputes in Wikipedia are not resolved simply through voting, or head counts of which editors support which position in a given dispute, these are not circumstances under which you ought to continue reverting. Instead, please consult the wider Wikipedia community to try to establish where consensus lies. If your views are correct, then there should be a good chance the larger community will support you - but you need to first establish that they do support you before reverting back to your preferred version. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that the dispute has now been referred for dispute resolution, Alamancer has gone ahead and posted his full Levy paragraph with its completely disproportionate five lines devoted to a single relatively minor contributor to Freud scholarship (plus the sentences I proposed with references to three other authors with favourable views on the scientific credentials of Freud's theories).
- One sentence reads:
- On this basis he rejects as confused and incoherent Cioffi’s attempt to portray Freud’s interpretive method as “spinning webs of pseudo-meaning” and as on a par with new-age Pyramidology
- This is really slipshod. There is no indication where one finds "Cioffi's attempt...", so it places Levy's criticism in a vacuum. Moreover, it is not clear whether the phrase "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" is Cioffi's or Levy's. To my mind it reads as if it is Cioffi's. So, Almanacer, please make it clear and provide any missing appropriate citation(s). Esterson (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Although Almanacer is behaving wrongly in continuing to revert, I'm going to hold back from reverting him right away. It's best under these circumstances to see what other editors have to say on this issue, even though the wait may be frustrating. SlimVirgin said a while ago that she would look at this dispute; it might help if she were to comment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
What I'm doing, as PoC is fully aware is responding to his and Esterton's reverting my fully sourced text by a reputable author on the central topic of Freud's scientific credibility. I am re-reverting, they continue hitherto (PoC latest is a welcome change) to revert lately with a substitute quotation from Levy which does not address the scientific credibility issue. They have nor can they demonstrate any consensus for their actions and have therefore no grounds to ask me to demonstrate one for mine. Status quo ante bellum should obtain until the dispute is settled.
I'm happy to respond to Esterton's latest remarks on the content of the Levy para once he drops his absurd claim that it's "completely disproportionate" and desists from reverting it. Since I pointed out that Fisher and Greenberg get more space than Levy he's now arguing that disproportionality has to be assessed on the basis of his own consideration of Levy's standing in the total output of Freud scholarship. Not remotely plausible given that Levy's standpoint is in direct opposition to his own. Currently Freud critics in the article outnumber advocates 2 to 1, the latter merit more space not less. His appeal to WP:UNDUE is totally lacking in credibility. Almanacer (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you seem to be both misreading content policies such as WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's rules about editor behavior. There is no rule saying that sourced material cannot be removed from articles - as I said before, although doing so is considered undesirable in general, it can be desirable or even absolutely necessary in particular situations. You're also plain wrong in suggesting that whether the Levy text is disproportionate or not depends on what views Esterson personally holds or whether he agrees with Levy or not. Material either is disproportionate or it isn't, regardless of who wants to remove it. Please review WP:AGF and avoid personalizing disputes in this way. WP:NPOV certainly does not demand that critics and supporters of a man or his ideas must be given equal space in an article, and it would be an absurd policy if it did. Rather, it requires that articles reflect the balance of scholarly opinion. If scholarly opinion of a theory is predominantly favorable, then more space should be given to favorable than to negative views - and the other way around if scholarly opinion is predominantly negative. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where the behavioral aspect of things is concerned, your behavior is also quite unsatisfactory. There may not be a consensus in the strict sense for the version of the science section Esterson and I prefer, but no one other than you is currently arguing for your preferred version. For you to say that it's absolutely fine for you to keep reverting under these conditions is just ridiculous. Rules like WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS are absolutely intended to stop that kind of behavior. I'm holding back from reverting you for now in the hopes that discussion can resolve this, but I offer no guarantee that I won't revert you in future. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again I have to respond to Almancer's misleading posting above point by point, including having to repeat what I've said before.
- 1. The fact that the Levy passage is fully sourced is a red herring. No one is disputing that.
- 2. It is not the case that my replacement quotation from Levy did not address the scientific credibility issue. My three line sentence started by saying that Levy presents the case for the scientific validity of Freud's interpretative procedures, and provided a lengthy supportive quotation which included the importance of the concepts of resistance and transference – just as yours does!
- 3. "Status quo ante bellum" means that we should go back to before the posting of the disputed paragraph by you.
- 4. Almanacer writes:
- "Since I pointed out that Fisher and Greenberg get more space than Levy he's now arguing that disproportionality has to be assessed on the basis of his own consideration of Levy's standing in the total output of Freud scholarship."
- 4. Almanacer writes:
- Not for the first time, Almanacer misrepresents the situation. All my objections were put earlier, so it is not a case of my now putting a fresh argument in response to his latest message. I pointed out that, in contrast to Levy 1996, the Fisher and Greenberg 1977 volume has been cited in a huge number of articles and College psychology texts. I will add here that, unlike the Levy passage, the sentences devoted to F&G do not give their views on Freud's theories, but are a summary of the results of experimental testing of Freudian theories. And what I provided was not my consideration of Levy's standing but a factual statement of the very limited contribution Levy has made to Freud scholarship in terms of publications.
- 5. Quote: "Not remotely plausible given that Levy's standpoint is in direct opposition to his own."
- First, I have pointed out before that my objections have nothing to do with my views on Levy, and that I would equally object if there was a passage outlining Cioffi's trenchant views on Wollheim's Freud (as the latter publication has not been cited in the context of scientific credibility). Second, it is not the case that I oppose Levy's standpoint tout court. On the contrary, I largely agree with his criticisms of Grunbaum, a celebrated critic of Freud. Third, my own paragraph gave three lines to Levy, including a quotation from Levy 1996, plus references to three other pro-Freud authors' views.
- I have not checked Almanacer's 2:1 ratio statement, but tentatively accept it is something of that order. (I will however note that a considerable number of citations relate to authors who have developed psychoanalysis from its original orthodox Freudian base, and I wonder how Almanacer judges these.) I suspect the imbalance is largely due to that found in the Science section. However, such an imbalance in the Science section does not reflect bias, but is roughly what one might expect, given that anti-Freud authors set great store on the scientific issue, whereas this is not the case for many advocates of Freud. The eminent psychoanalyst and Freud biographer Louis Breger argues that psychoanalysis is not a science, several notable authors argue that it is an hermeneutic (interpretative) discourse, not a scientific discipline (Habermas, Ricoeur, George Klein, Schafer and Spence), and many psychoanalytic writers regard the "scientific" issue as of no great importance.
- Why Almanacer sets conditions for his dealing with my pointing out deficiencies in his sentence on the Freud page pertaining to Levy's criticisms of Cioffi is a mystery, especially as no one is currently suggesting that his paragraph be reverted while it is has been referred to Wikipedia dispute resolution. Esterson (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I agree with PoC (on the dispute page[7]) that the Science section should be tidied up and reduced in size (which whould reduce the anti-Freud citations), but how one would set about this given the disagreements about what is important I have no idea. It would be a major task for any editor to undertake. Esterson (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don’t propose to argue the toss with PoC over WP rules and guidelines other than to remind him the default is to edit, discuss and re-edit, which is what I have done (in reponse to Estertons's comments). His claim that I am unwilling to compromise is a misrepresentation. If we take his view than any text can be reverted then only re-reverted after an agreed consensus is formed much good editorial work would be discouraged. And that is why the staut quo ante bellum should include my Levy edit. I’m glad to see this seems agreed, at least pro tem.
My referencing of the Levy passage is as precise, if not more so than the 30 or so page reference he gave for his one sentence quotation from Levy. Page 55 has the "spinning" quote. What I would call shoddy editing is reference-mining from an academic database, plonking the results in brackets and appending it to any remotely positive account of Freudian theory eg the Fisher/Greenberg passage (all the references,BTW, predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years !).
What I said re his replacement text was the quote from Levy which Esterton includes doesn’t mention the scientific credibility issue, thus making the passage of less relevance than the text I provided and therfore less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al.
See the dispute page for further my response to the issues Esterton raises. Almanacer (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Almancer writes: "If we take his [Esterson's] view that any text can be reverted then only re-reverted after an agreed consensus is formed much good editorial work would be discouraged."
- Almanacer: It would be nice if you would not misrepresent what other editors have said. I have never said that no text should ever be reverted without an agreed consensus. I wrote that it is discourteous to add/amend a passage without consultation while the topic is under dispute on the Talk page.
- You wrote: "My referencing of the Levy passage is as precise, if not more so than the 30 or so page reference he gave for his one sentence quotation from Levy. Page 55 has the 'spinning' quote."
- More misrepresentation. My citation "pp. 23-56" was for the "detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures" in which "Levy presents the case for their scientific validity…" If this had remained on the Freud page, and you had pointed out that I had not specified the page for the quotation that followed I would happily have added that to the reference. Contrast this with your behaviour. You state "P. 55 has the spinning quote" as if this is an answer to my question. I asked you to make clear whether the words "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" are Levy's or Cioffi's. From your writing Levy "rejects… Cioffi's attempt to portray Freud's interpretative method as 'spinning webs of pseudo-meaning'…" it seems to me to read as if the expression is Cioffi's. Given the ambiguity, I asked you to make clear whose it is. Please answer the question instead of evading it. My second point was that you write of "Cioffi's attempt…" without any indication of what article Levy is addressing, leaving Levy's criticisms in a vacuum. Again you failed to address that point.
- You write: "What I said re his replacement text was the quote from Levy which Esterton includes doesn’t mention the scientific credibility issue, thus making the passage of less relevance than the text I provided and therfore less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al."
- As I've already pointed out, I specifically mentioned the context of "Freud’s scientific credibility", and the quotation I gave in this context included Levy's alluding to the central importance of resistance and transference phenomena – concepts you yourself highlighted in your sentences paraphrasing Levy's views in this context.
- Who would dream from your writing that my three-line sentence on Levy is "less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al." that I followed it up by citing the views of three more authors favourable to Freud on the "scientific" issue.
- You write: "What I would call shoddy editing is reference-mining from an academic database, plonking the results in brackets and appending it to any remotely positive account of Freudian theory…"
- I have no idea what you are talking about. All my references, such as to the responses to the Fisher and Greenfield results that you specify, are from publications I have on my bookshelves, or articles in my filing cabinets or in my computer files.
- You write: "all the references, BTW, predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years!"
- You already made this point early in this Science section, and I responded to it, and amended the wording on the Freud page to indicate that the responses were to F&G's earlier more extensive 1977 volume on experimental studies. (I have now made a small further clarification amendment.) The citations I gave remain valid because at the end of each topic section in the 1996 volume F&G summarise their 1977 results, and because F&G's appraisals of the post-1977 studies suffer from the same methodological deficiencies which were highlighted by the critics of the 1977 volume. That F&G have not made any concessions to critics is illustrated by their brushing them aside, including (see above) Kline's pointing out that they "are quite uncritical, and accept results at their face value with almost no consideration of methodological inadequacy".
- I await your clarification as to whether the words "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" are Levy's or Cioffi's, and for you to rectify the omission of citation for the publication of Cioffi's that Levy is criticising. Esterson (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, but it's too much to read. Of the two versions that people were reverting, I prefer PoC's, in case that helps. More broadly, I'd say the problem with the science section, and the article overall, is that it's trying to cram in too much opinion, and is left to including sound bites from each person. So you would need to be familiar with the material from elsewhere in order to understand this article, and if you're already familiar with it, why read it here? In other words, you're not writing for your audience.
If I were writing this section (or any of the others in the Legacy section), I would lay out the issues, then give examples of people who had discussed the issues, rather than focusing on the people and getting the issues out by quoting them. For example, "Gilbert Ryle calls Freud 'psychology's one man of genius' and the influence of his teaching 'deservedly profound' even though its allegories have been 'damagingly popular'..." First, Gilbert Ryle was not a scientist, but more importantly the sentence conveys no information. In addition, some of the key points are buried. Gellner's criticism is key – that psychoanalysis is not falsifiable – but is barely alluded to. And citing what people thought of Freud in 1977 isn't appropriate for an article in 2012. What is the current scientific perception of Freud, what are the key criticisms, and who is making them?
I hope this helps a little. I should add that I know it's a lot easier to criticize that it is to write! SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, if you find this discussion to be too much to read, I don't blame you. I can barely stand to read it myself, though I haven't given up quite yet. It does help to say which version of the science section you prefer, however, and thanks for doing so. I'll note that although I am personally responsible for most of the "legacy" section of this article (with Esterson and Almanacer being responsible for most of what remains), I do think it is too long, and wouldn't at all be opposed to seeing it carefully cut back and compressed. That is, of course, the kind of thing that needs to be done delicately and carefully, and demands knowledge of the subject, so it's tricky to manage. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- This section of the talk page alone is apparently 18,000 words. :) It means that the chances of uninvolved editors wanting to help are minimal, so the three of you are probably going to have to sort it out by yourselves. If you can isolate a key question, you could open an RfC, but that won't help with the general problems of the legacy section. You're right that it takes a huge amount of reading the sources to do this properly; this is why people are hesitant to get stuck in.
- I would say the best way to proceed is to draw up a short list of the key sources (the sources that no self-respecting bio of Freud could be without), then try to stick to them. Once you have that draft up and running, then fill it in with opinions from elsewhere. But proceed based on the issues, rather than simply listing what people have said, because then you end up with a quote farm that leaves the reader wondering what the substance of the points was. And do Fisher and Greenberg need that much space?
- Again, I know it's incredibly easy to say this, and incredibly hard to fix it, so I'm offering these comments in the spirit of very respectful criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I basically agree with you regarding Ryle - that part isn't crucial. It could perhaps be removed altogether, or at least cut back (I'll do the latter in a moment). I'm less sure I agree about Fisher and Greenberg - they are very well known researchers, and their 1977 study is a well known and widely quoted one. There would be no difficulty with replacing the discussion of it with a more up to date evaluation of Freud that had the same academic stature, but I'm not sure what that might be. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't read the entire discussion (for obvious reason), but basically as I commented at the DRN here Wikipedia:DRN#Sigmund_Freud. If there is issues with WP:FRINGE material, there is the dedicated noticeboard WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- (ec to PoC) I'm not suggesting you remove it. It's just that it's a bit long, and it's not entirely clear what they're saying (e.g. "some of his views about the psychodynamics of women" were "not supported." No idea what either the first or the second part means), so it's a lot of words for little return. And calling the dream theory "dangerously inaccurate," and "what is true was not new, and what was new was not true," -- again, what was the substance?
- The key criticism is that none of it is falsifiable, so I would start with that, and really draw that out. Who argued it, what was their argument? (not quoting them, just relaying the substance). All else follows from that point -- if it's correct, psychoanalysis can't be a science; if it's false, who argued against it, and which parts of it are indeed falsifiable? That's how I would approach that section. Can it be tested, can it be wrong, or it is a closed system that simply adapts to accommodate any objection? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, the discussion of Fisher/Greenberg is indeed long, but not without reason - they're very frequently cited researchers, and their views can be considered representative of modern scientific re-evaluations of Freud, so it surely makes some sense to mention them in some detail. I agree that the material could and should be made clearer than it is, but surely not removed. Other things - like Ryle and Stafford-Clark's views - are totally peripheral by comparison, and although I'm not rushing to remove them, probably could be removed without worsening the article. To IRWolfie: WP:FRINGE is not really the issue here, at least not in my opinion. Rather, it's a WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE issue. Too much material has been added to the legacy section, most especially to the science section, and the challenge is to find a way of cutting it back properly, while preserving the most important parts. I'm still thinking about how to do this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with almost all that SlimVirgin and Polisher of Cobwebs have written. Just two points in regard to PoC's comments. In relation to the Legacy section PoC says he is responsible for most of it. Surely not, there must have been other substantial contributors for the section to have got out of hand in the way it has. PoC adds: "with Esterson and Almanacer being responsible for most of what remains". As far as I can see, the only contributions I have made to the massive Legacy section are two sentences in the Science section, and my proposed referencing of three pro-Freud authors that Almanacer has tacked on to his Levy paragraph in the same section. I don't know what Almanacer has posted, but I doubt it is any more substantial than mine.
On Fisher and Greenberg, as PoC writes their 1977 study is a well known and widely quoted one. But I don't think the suggestion for replacing it with a comparable "more up to date evaluation of Freud" is appropriate. Firstly, the volume is not an evaluation of Freud, but an extensive evaluation of experimental testing of Freud's theories, and to my knowledge only Kline 1981 has also undertaken anything on this scale. Secondly, as the citation on the Freud page indicates, Fisher and Greenberg published a subsidiary volume in 1996, which includes summaries of their 1977 results and adds detailed accounts of post-1977 experimental studies.Esterson (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin: As you say, this section is too much to read, but it is not necessary to do so. All you need to know is that the central issue is Amanacer's highlighting of the very limited number of citations of Freud supporters in the Science section. (I have given an explanation for this on the dispute page.[8]) The issue is now nothing more than the one you centred on: a choice between these [9] two versions. (Almanacer's later posting tacked on my three sentences citing pro-Freud authors in addition to Levy to his disproportionate five sentence paraphrasing of Levy.) Esterson (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have edited English Wikipedia's Sigmund Freud article a larger number of times than any other person in the world. Though my edits have affected all parts of it, most of my efforts have been concentrated on the legacy section, which indeed is primarily my work. The psychotherapy section is almost entirely composed of material that I added, and what little was not added by me (the material on Watters and Offshe, which was added by SusanLesch), I rewrote. The science section is largely the result of edits by myself, Esterson, Almanacer, and Hypoplectrus. Only the last paragraph of it, dealing with the views of neuro-scientists, predates those additions, and it too has been rewritten. I am responsible for essentially every word of the philosophy section, either because the material was added by me or because I rewrote what was already there (mainly the former). The literary criticism and the feminism sections are also mainly composed of material added by me, with only small additions from other editors. None of this is of relevance to the content issues under debate, but for the record those are the facts. My being largely responsible for the legacy section does not mean that I hold a high view of it - I am, on the contrary, quite dissatisfied with it, and believe it should be cut back. I will soon make proposals as to which material should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I suggest we have a completely separate section for discussing overhauling the Legacy section, otherwise we'll lose sight of the present issue of which paragraph should be on the Freud page, Almanacer's paragraph that he has posted, or the one favoured by PoC and me. Esterson (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Esterton claims to have provided a “compromise” text “paraphrasing Levy's support for the scientific credentials of Freud's interpretative procedures” As is evident it is not a paraphrase of anything. It’s a statement that Levy makes a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a quotation. I have restored part of my summary of Levy’s argument following PoC’s recent revertion but in a reworded form. Please note that the Levy content is/was ALREADY a compromise between my original version the more recent ones, made in response to Esterton’s comments. I have taken on board Slim Virgin’s point on the Dispute Board that direct quotations are largely undesirable and removed them. I agree a new section Legacy is desirable. Almanacer (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Almancer's quibble about my using the word "paraphrase" is a red herring. All that matters is than my three line sentence referenced Levy's making a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a relevant quotation. His assertion that his Levy content was already a compromise is disingenuous. What he did was make small amendments while retaining five sentences devoted to the views of a minor contributor to Freud studies, and while ignoring the two central objections that I repeatedly spelled out. At long last he has made a genuine concession by reducing the five Levy sentences to two. That means that we have a choice between these two paragraphs: [10]
- The reason for arguing mine is preferable is twofold. I see no reason why a minor contributor to Freud studies should warrant two sentences when there is no other instance of an author's views on Freud being given more than one sentence. More importantly, I object to his alluding specifically to Levy's criticisms of a Cioffi book chapter (1970) that is nowhere mentioned on the Freud page. To allow the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited opens the way for editors to reference any author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud, a precedent that could extend an already overfull Freud page almost ad infinitum. For the latter reason, I would just as strongly object if an editor referenced Cioffi's critical essay on Wollheim's Freud. Esterson (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- In case Almanacer again cites the several sentences given to Fisher and Greenberg, I have already pointed out that these do not give their views on Freud, but are summaries of the conclusions from experimental studies. Esterson (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Astonishingly, after pages and pages of complaints about Levy and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, what Esterton now proposes posting is a quotation from Levy that is the longest of any other in the entire Science section. As has been pointed out by SlimVirgin, large quotations are no substitute for good paraphrasing. I note that Esterton thinks it’s a red herring to point out he failed to provide one as claimed. Well, I think that paraphrasing is in important attribute of Wiki edits so when a claim is made to have provided one and it turns out to be nothing of the sort it should alert us to problems in the editorial interventions and other claims made by the editor concerned.
With regard to the alternative texts, what is absent in Esterton’s contribution is any reference to Levy’s central point that (in his view) it is clinical casework material that provides evidence by which Freud’s theories can be tested. That is clear from my summary but nowhere to found in his contribution. “Making sense of psychoanalytic interpretation,” which is what the quote is about, is not the same as making the case for the evidential status of Freud’s theories.
In his complaint about two sentences rather than one on Levy, Esterton, not for the first time, is missing the point. It’s not about Levy’s allegedly “minor” status in the academic pecking order, it’s about the standpoint he represents in the debate and the need to have a page that “fairly represents all significant viewpoints”, to quote the guidelines, where the overwhelming majority of the text is Freud criticism. With regard to Fisher and Greenberg what else is “finding support for” supposed to amount to other than expressing a view on the validity of Freudian theories?
In objecting to the inclusion of Levy’s criticism of Popper and Cioffi, Esterton has invented a protocol he wants to enforce on other editors which has no basis in any WP guidelines viz the prohibition of “the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited”. I believe this would unnecessarily and undesirably exclude instances of any author who presented a case by critical exposition of another author. This is the case with Levy who chooses to make his case by “exposing various errors in interpreting Freud ” and whose comment on Cioffi is applicable beyond the content of the 1970 paper. WP guidelines applied on a case-by-case basis is what matters in the management of inappropriate content and we don’t need Esterton’s proposed supplement to them (he could try adding it in the appropriate forum if he wishes). I’d be perfectly happy to have a sentence or two on Cioffi’s view of Wollheim provided it was relevant to the science debate. Almanacer (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- My complaint about undue weight was about a disproportionate five sentences allotted to Levy. My proposed quotation was long because I was bending over backwards to accommodate Levy's views! Anyway, as I posted on the Dispute page, I am happy to have my Levy sentence replaced by your first sentence, so that gets that out of the way.
- I don't object to a mention of criticism of Popper, because Popper's famous "irrefutability" contention is cited at the beginning of the Grunbaum paragraph, though I suggest the appropriate place for it is together with the referencing of Levy's views on Grunbaum in that paragraph.
- I'm surprised that Almanacer thinks providing a purportedly objective summary of experimental results is the same as expressing a personal view.
- For the rest, I am reposting what I posted on the Dispute page:
- Almanacer says his addition of two Levy sentences is about the need for fair representation of all significant viewpoints. But it was I who added three other pro-Freud viewpoints on the scientific credentials of Freudian theories. And does Almanacer really think that the numerous briefer references to other authors' views in the Science section are sufficient to fairly represent their viewpoints'? Why should Levy be an exception to the limitations inherent for a topic on which so much has been written? On the explicit mentioning of Cioffi (whose article being criticised he has not even cited, and indeed has not read), Almanacer has made clear he favours an open house policy of unlimited citing of one author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud in the appropriate context. In that case, I can add another paragraph starting with a referencing of Erwin's article rebutting Levy's case against Grunbaum. Then, as the Cioffi 1970 essay is criticised, it would be legitimate for me to reference, contra Levy, Sulloway's favourable view of Cioffi's "spurious allusions" critique that Almanacer mentions, together with similar favourable views from Erwin and Webster of precisely this same critique by Cioffi. In other words we can have one editor vying with another to post their favoured author's views on another author's views on Freud. That way lies the potential for almost unlimited extension of the Freud page.
- In my proposed paragraph (now with the first sentence replaced by Almancer's first sentence), I have also included the views of three other pro-Freud authors' views on the scientific credentials of Freud's theories (views which, of course, Almanacer has included in his paragraph). It seems to me that this is not just a compromise on my part, I have gone as far as I could reasonably have gone to accommodate Almanacer's original concerns about insufficient pro-Freud citations in the Science section. Esterson (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I've stated on the Dispute page,[11] I have moved Levy's criticism of Popper to the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph where it is more appropriately placed, together with the Levy criticism of Grunbaum that Almanacer previously posted there. Levy's criticism of Popper is thus retained. I have also deleted the second Levy sentence from the following paragraph, for reasons given there (and above). The choice is now between the following versions (see highlighting in the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph and in the following paragraph).[12] I suggest further discussion of my latest attempt to resolve this dispute should take place on the Dispute page. Esterson (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Now that this dispute is resolved, could we have the whole of this "Science" section on the Talk page archived to get it out of the way? I don't know how to do this. Esterson (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it archiving is done automatically after a period of inactivity in the section concerned. This should remain the case. We have just resolved a lenghty dispue over the issue of "fair representation" in the Science section and any further editorial changes should build on this rather than start it all over again as PoC seems about to do (see Legacy section). His or any other proposed changes to it should remain topics for the science section and be posted here. I'm sure there will be comments on future edits I will be making shortly. Almanacer (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- How can a sensible discussion of changes to the Legacy section be based on the few relevant items in the great mass of material in the Talk page Science section? What is needed is a separate section as provided by PoC for discussion of substantive changes. (My recollection of the Dispute page discussion was that there were some editors who voiced agreement with PoC's suggestion for a major overhaul, and no voices against.) PoC has posted a draft Legacy section. You have every opportunity to express your views (including objections to passages omitted) in the new section, preferably with a new sub-heading so that discussion of your views can be maintained in one limited space. Esterson (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I’m not proposing contribute to the discussion/editing/changing of the content of any other section than the science section at the moment I intend to continue using the science section of the Talk Page. This also applies to responding to any further reverting of content I have already provided, including passages recently in dispute and currently appearing in an agreed compromise form. I’ll be doing so with reference to arguments already set out in that forum and which other editors may wish to consult, including passages recently in dispute and currently appearing in an agreed compromise form. Almanacer (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Citation templates
I just noticed that the page seems to be getting slower to load and therefore harder to edit, almost certainly because of the templates. The best thing would be at least not to add any more, and to make a start on removing the ones that are there -- mostly to speed up load times, but also to make the reference formatting consistent. Once the page is full of templates they're a real nuisance to get rid of, so prevention is better than cure.
The simplest citation style is "Smith 2012, p. 1" in the footnote, and "Smith, John. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012" in an alphabetical References section.
Or if you want to use only footnotes, then "John Smith. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012" on first reference, and thereafter "Smith 2012, p. 1."
I'd be willing to start that process if there are no objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection. Sounds like a good idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make a slow start. I'll create a separate References section for now, but it's easy enough to move them into the footnotes if people want a full citation in the Notes section on first reference. Some people prefer to see the full citation the first time the work is cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a start, but I'm going to leave it there for a bit to make sure everyone's on board. The advantages are that the Notes section will be easier to read, refs will be easier to write, load time (particularly diffs and preview) should speed up considerably, there will be no repetition, and the References section will give a good overview of the sources.
- The disadvantage is that the Notes will just say "Gay 2006, p. 1," and people will have to go to the References section to find out what that refers to. There are templates that jump from the short to the long ref, but then you're back to fiddly templates and slow load times. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Just noting here that I'm finding a lot of repetitive references, where it's not clear why more than one ref has been added (probably to bolster a disputed point). I may remove some of these because they're not obviously helpful; for example, books are being cited that name only the editor and page number, but without the author or essay title. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delayed response (I've been occupied elsewhere!): I think the addition of second or more references may be to show that the item (possibly a factual statement) is supported by more than one author's views and so is probably reliable (or possibly the same point is made from different angles by different authors). I can think of situations (certainly on other Wikipedia pages) where what looks like a reputable book reference has a contention of dubious validity that is not supported by other authors on the same subject - but that's another story! Esterson (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Freud and feminism
I have blocked the IP who was repeatedly removing sourced info from the article. It is my impression that the feminist critique of Freud's work is a major and a notable aspect of the subject. If there is a consensus here that this is not the case, we can look at removing the section. Any comments? --John (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have now semi-protected the article until a consensus can be reached here. --John (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the relevant policy is due weight, rather than notability. Feminist reactions to Freud and psychoanalysis are obviously an important part of his legacy, and much has been written about them. One could argue that the entire legacy section should be turned into a new article, but simply removing the material on feminism, while leaving everything else intact, seems extremely strange, and I don't think there's any justification for it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A Vision of a Neutral Account of Freud
I believe there is an alternative to the continuing scrum of opinions called on in favor of or against the validity of psychoanalysis. The equal titration of for and against votes is not so much neutrality of POV but just an uneasy armistice of opposing points of view. I have tried to nudge the discussion toward neutrality by bringing up two prominent commentators on Freud that themselves have a more nuanced view of his work--they are not strictly 'for' or 'against'. On the more anti-Freud side, I have brought up psychiatrist Paul McHugh, chair of the Johns Hopkins psychiatry department for 25 years and a vocal critic of psychoanalysis, who nonetheless sees some significant merits to Freud's work. On the pro-Freud side, I have called on neuroscientist Eric Kandel, a defender of psychoanalysis who nonetheless has made very explicit his criticisms of deficiencies in psychoanalytic methodology. Ideally, the Freud WP page would do a better job of synthesizing Freud's achievements and failings into one more neutral picture. The claim that psychoanalysis across-the-board is a pseudoscience is no more neutral or persuasive than the view that everybody who questions Freud is suffering from resistance. Writers like Cioffi take the extreme point of view that all of Freud's arguments are fatally flawed and unempirical. Freud made a great many different arguments and produced many different justifications, some of them adequate and some not. This is true of many thinkers. Pythagoras put forward a nonsense idea about the universe being organized in terms of musical tones. He was wrong there, but that's no reason to discard the Pythagorean theorem. If the article relies on extreme critics like Cioffi and Crews, who deny any validity in Freud, then that is an invitation to others to cite more and more views the other way, in support of Freud, or to cite critics of the critics, and it will go on and on in un-neutral warfare. I don't see how the problem can be solved without some consensus among editors that is genuine; that reflects substantive amelioration of the extreme critical stance and an awareness of the methodological problems that have troubled the field. I have tried to initiate talk of that 'diplomatic' nature several times without success, and the page remains un-neutral, with a prevailing bias against Freud--perhaps because times have changed: it is no longer the Freudians who are the most doctrinaire people around. Their critics now give them a good run for the money. Meanwhile, the absolutist carping about validity and pseudoscience distracts from exploring some of Freud's basic accomplishments, such as the idea of "denial"--that people sometimes cannot believe that which is painful to believe--an idea with roots in the Greek and Roman philosophers that Freud developed into a more modern theory of mental functioning.Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not clear what exactly you're proposing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No surprise there. There are so many things you're unclear on--among them, what constitutes fair editing in the inclusive spirit of Wikipedia. I am inviting editors to choose rational dialogue with opposing viewpoints instead of conducting a war of attrition against them and repeatedly deleting material you don't like, as you have done repeatedly and as Esterson has now done against Alamancer in regard to Alamancer's attempt to include a criticism of Cioffi. You generally (or should I say, "generally specifically" as you might) camouflage your war of attrition under idle references to WP rules. I encourage yout to stop doing that. I am inviting other, more moderate voices to weigh in in order to improve the page.
- You have disparaged my placement of a banner at the top of the Freud page declaring it as the subject of a POV dispute. The banner of course accurately reflects what this page now is: a disordered scrum of conflicting opinions of uncertain veracity and authority. If you would like the banner removed, you might rethink your strategies, because they help to cement it in place. You raise the specious question of what in specific I am proposing: I have already proposed many specific amendments to the site (and have devoted an entire section on the Talk page to enumerating them), every single one of which you have shot down with doctrinaire ardor. Just as certain kinds of orthodoxy among Freudians has lent credence to the cavils about psychoanalytic methodology, your doctrinaire approach to criticizing Freud lends credence to the Freudian notion that some people reject Freud not for rational reasons but because it's too painful for them to admit certain facts of human nature.Hypoplectrus (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hypoplectrus: I have visited the Freud Talk page fairly frequently, and my impression of Polisher of Cobwebs is of someone who is concerned to maintain Wikipedia principles.
- You write:
- I am inviting editors to choose rational dialogue with opposing viewpoints instead of conducting a war of attrition against them and repeatedly deleting material you don't like, as you have done repeatedly and as Esterson has now done against Alamancer in regard to Alamancer's attempt to include a criticism of Cioffi.
- For someone who complains about alleged bias, this is hardly a balanced account of events. I originally pointed out on the Talk page (above) that the placing of Alamancer's sentence on Levy's criticisms of Cioffi made it read as a direct response to Cioffi's criticism of Fisher and Greenberg's book on experimental studies of Freudian theories, when in fact they had nothing to do with that issue. I also pointed out that the criticisms that Alamancer paraphrased were general points about Cioffi's views on Freud's interpretative procedures, unrelated to the two citations of Cioffi already on the Freud page, observing that if this is allowed it opens the way to an almost endless trail of point/counterpoint. Rather than discuss this latter point on the Talk page to try to arrive at a consensus, Alamancer chose to go ahead and make a change directly on the Freud page first (as he did not a second occasion).
- The notion that I was deleting material simply on the grounds that I didn't like it is a travesty of the situation. It is no more appropriate for there to be a "stand alone" criticism of an aspect of Cioffi's critique of Freud unrelated to the items for which he has been cited than there is for (say) a stand alone paraphrase of Cioffi's critique of Richard Wollheim's account of Freud's work, or a paraphrase of Grunbaum's critique of Habermas's hermeneutic defence of Freud.
- I think it is inappropriate for you to suggest that PoC's differing from you on the (approximate) neutrality of the Freud page indicates he is afraid to admit certain facts (which ones?) of human nature. Putting aside your following Freud's notorious use of this device against critics, how can you possibly know any such thing about PoC on the basis of anything he has said or done here? And while on the issue of purported bias, I note above that you refer to "savage" attacks on Freud by Richard Webster. You may not agree with this author (obviously you don't), but for you to describe anything in his closely researched and carefully argued analyses of Freud's clinical claims and theoretical notions as "savage" is tendentious.
- I have had another look at the Freud page, and there are long stretches (9.3-9.7) where his views are laid out with scarcely any mention of criticism. Nor in my view does the lede exhibit the anti-Freud bias you perceive. It is always possible to find things with which one disagrees. In the early section "Development of Psychoanalysis" there is this statement about Anna O.: "In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of early traumatic incidents in her life." This is a common account, but in fact retrieved memories of early life traumatic incidents are not to be found in the relevant sections of Breuer's case history (Standard Edition, vol. 2. pp. 34-37, 39-40), but one can't challenge every sentence one objects to. Esterson (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hypoplectrus, if I'm unclear about what you are proposing in your comments above, then that's for only one reason, in my view: it's that your comments are unclear. Please be more specific in your suggestions. If I object to the "neutrality disputed" banner that you placed on the article, it's simply because in the years I've been editing Wikipedia I have very often seen such banners placed on articles, and know that it rarely, if ever, leads to articles being improved. But note that I have not undertaken myself remove the banner - I see it more as an irrelevance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Highest duty of a woman!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: To be loved is the highest duty of women, said the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, the Croatian daily La Voce del Popolo, Fiume / Rijeka, and added that it is even more important for a woman to love!93.137.59.179 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Legacy section suggestions
As I have indicated above, in my responses to SlimVirgin, I think the Legacy section needs cutting back. I present here some suggestions. Although the Psychotherapy sub-section of Legacy is both long and very detailed, I wouldn't be in favor of cutting it back to any significant extent - the material that was added there was carefully considered, and seems useful and appropriate. The Science sub-section, in contrast, contains significant amounts of material that could be removed without significant loss to the article as a whole. It starts by mentioning Gilbert Ryle and David Stafford-Clark's views, but neither are of great consequence for Freud's image or scientific reputation, and I wouldn't object if anyone wished to remove them altogether. The material on Fisher and Greenberg is much more significant, and I don't believe it ought to be removed. The second paragraph of the Science sub-section, dealing with the views of various critics of Freud, could be cut back somewhat, but doesn't need drastic cuts (of the two quotes from Hans Eysenck, I'd be in favor of keeping only the first). The third paragraph of the Science sub-section is probably the most problematic. It begins by noting that, "Adolf Grünbaum has rejected Popper's critique of Freud, and argued that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." That places the emphasis more on Grünbaum's view of Popper than on Grünbaum's view of Freud; it should be the other way around, as the article is about Freud. It would be better to have something like, "Adolf Grünbaum has maintained, in opposition to Popper, that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." The example used to illustrate Grünbaum's point - the alleged connection between paranoia and repressed homosexuality - is unnecessary and could be removed. It would be better for the article on Grünbaum, which at present contains very little useful information. I think the same could be said of most of the paragraph dealing with Grünbaum, including everything about Levy, Gellner, Cioffi, and Esterson. The fourth paragraph of the Science sub-section doesn't seem altogether appropriate to this article - much of the material there would be better for the Karl Popper article, since its essentially criticism of Popper. Perhaps only the material on Fromm's views would belong here, although even that I don't see as crucial. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the Science sub-section seem acceptable as they stand. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The Philosophy sub-section of Legacy is less bad than the Science sub-section, but it too contains a significant amount of material that could or should be cut. Richard Wollheim and Thomas Baldwin's criticisms of Jean-Paul Sartre's criticisms of Freud's theory of the unconscious would be better for the Sartre article than this one. Similarly, Grünbaum's criticisms of Habermas and Ricœur would be better for the articles on Grünbaum and/or Habermas and Ricœur, Harry Cleaver's criticism of Althusser would be better for the Althusser article, and Crews's criticism of Derrida for the Derrida article. I refrain from comment, for the moment, on the remaining sub-sections of Legacy (Art, Literary Criticism, and Feminism), since I haven't yet given much thought to them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with almost everything that PoC has written above about the deletion of various items. (I would have to see what a revised "Grunbaum" reference/paragraph looks like before agreeing completely.) In particular, I agree with PoC's suggested rewriting of the current sentence to read: "Adolf Grünbaum has maintained, in opposition to Popper, that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." I will say here that given that Grunbaum's view supporting the scientific credentials of Freudian theory is on the Freud page, then it is equally valid to post Gellner's subtly-argued view that Freudian theories are pseudo-scientific. (Incidentally, in that case the single page citation for Gellner 1985 would be replaced by pp. 163-203.) It would help if we could have a revised "Grunbaum" passage proposed to enable there to be comments on a specific passage from other editors. Esterson (talk)
- I have made a tiny contribution to the pruning process by deleting the Cioffi citation in response to the listing of Fisher and Greenberg's statements on experimental findings. The Kline and Erwin references should remain to counterbalance F&G's uncritical recycling of the experimental claims, the former being a general criticism, and the latter being based on detailed criticsms of specific experimental claims. Esterson (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A more general point: Does the Freud page really need portraits of Karl Popper, Herbert Marcuse and Betty Frieden? What are they there for? Esterson (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I'll consider a shortened version of the Grünbaum paragraph for this article, and I will also be making proposals for the Grünbaum article on its talk page. I agree that the references to Kline and Erwin are appropriate, to provide balance to Fisher and Greenberg's claims. Whether the article should have portraits of Popper, Marcuse, and Friedan is an issue of secondary importance to the article as a whole. SusanLesch first added portraits to the section. I added others later, but I don't personally care whether they are there or not. I understand that Wikipedia policy encourages articles to have illustrations; whether these particular illustrations are appropriate or not could be debated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- My proposed shortened version of the legacy section is here. I would note that even this shortened version is still quite long. Possibly a little more material could be cut back, but that is the full extent of the cuts I want to make at the moment. The inclusion of the pictures is not crucial, but I would note in their defense that they interrupt the monotony of so much text, and in that sense probably make the article easier to read. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Portraits "interrupt the monotony of so much text, and in that sense probably make the article easier to read."
Thanks are due to PoC for the effort he has put into providing a first draft. I have only a few points on which I differ, and shall post them under separate sub-headings to allow each to be commented on separately.
Psychotherapy
"Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy."
The successful conquest by the psychoanalytic movement of the field of talking therapies from around 1920 onwards has obscured the fact that there were some talking therapies both before, and running parallel with, psychoanalysis. See my comments on this above (at the bottom of the Psychiatrist? section). More specifically: In a paper entitled "Psychoanalysis" delivered to the International Congress of Medicine in 1913 (published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology [1914]) Janet described cases he had treated by what he termed "psychological analysis" the details of which he had published before Freud had published his first case histories (1895). Janet writes of his clinical methodology that "it is necessary to collect all the information that the subject can give concerning his thoughts and memories; we must not be discouraged by the patient's volubility nor by the puerility of his revelations, and we must consider carefully what part in his life all the different events which he relates have played" (1914, p. 9). After providing more details, Janet writes: "Such was the situation in studies commenced on this question [the relation between a given memory and a given pathological symptom] when in the same field came the works of Freud…" Here is Janet again: "The supporters of Freudian theory insist on a prolonged examination of the patient which covers many hours at each treatment and extends over years. Very good, but there is nothing original about that; innumerable observers, among whom I must count myself, have sacrificed hours and hours of time… to a most exhaustive examination of poor patients in the hope of curing them…"
So I suggest a rewording of the first sentence under Psychotherapy along the following lines:
- Though not the first to describe cases involving individual verbal psychotherapy (see, e.g., Janet 1889[3]), Freud's psychoanalytic method came to dominate the field from early in the twentieth century, forming the basis for numerous variants that came later. Esterson (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Philosophy
"Psychoanalysis was originally seen as shockingly novel…"
This is one of many myths that Freud and his psychoanalytic colleagues promoted. See Sulloway Freud: Biologist of the Mind (1979), "The Myth of the Hero", pp. 445-495: "One of the most well-entrenched legends associated with the traditional account of Freud's life concerns the 'hostile' and even 'outraged' manner in which his psychoanalytic ideas were originally received" (p. 448). And here is Ellenberger: "Nothing is more remote from the truth than the usual assumption that Freud was the first to introduce novel sexual theories at a time when anything sexual was 'taboo'." (The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970, p. 545.) Hannah Decker (an historian who describes herself as someone who "accepts and agrees with 'orthodox' Freudian psychoanalytic theories") undertook comprehensive research on the reception of Freud’s early psychoanalytic writings in the German-speaking world. Her survey of the relevant literature led her to conclude that the traditional story of the hostile reception to Freud's ideas is a myth: “The main source of this description of Freud’s early reception was Freud himself. But Freud’s intellectual biases, emotional reactions, and unrealistic expectations often affected his judgment of the initial response to psychoanalysis” (Freud in Germany: 1893-1907, 1977, p. 321). She also discounts the legend that much of the opposition to Freud stemmed from outrage at his ideas on sexuality: “By far the majority of those who rejected the sexual views were dispassionate and matter-of-fact in their expression” (1977, p. 98).
I also think that the 1940s is too early for the widespread acceptance of Freud's views as being fundamentally conservative. (Psychoanalysis in the United States flourished in the third quarter of the twentieth century, and this includes the support of some noted intellectuals.)
I propose an opening sentence under the Philosophy heading along these lines:
- Although Freud and his psychoanalytic colleagues promoted the notion that his ideas were shockingly novel, by the end of the third quarter of the twentieth century they were viewed as fundamentally conservative by many in the European and American intellectual community.
Esterson (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Janov's primal therapy
In a stripped-down Legacy section I do not believe the Arthur Janov primal therapy paragraph is worthy of a place. It had its fashionable heyday in the 1970s/1980s, but was never more than a fringe psychotherapy, and is scarcely that now. Esterson (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Though this may not need saying, I'd like to note again that I have never been in the habit of adding material to the legacy section simply because I agree with it, or of refraining from adding material because I don't agree with it. The contents of the legacy section reflects what I have found in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, and I have seldom concerned myself with whether what the sources say is actually true (which is not something I would be in a position to judge in some cases, since I am not, like you, a Freud scholar). The statement that, "Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy" comes from a single book first published in 1963, and I don't say that it is necessarily correct or that your counter-examples are wrong. If you wish to change that statement to something you consider more accurate, then do so by all means (it would be best to base it on something other than primary sources such as Janet, however). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- As to your points about the Philosophy section: The statement that "Psychoanalysis was originally seen as shockingly novel" comes from a book by Paul Robinson. It reflects what Robinson says, not what I personally think (you may be totally right in everything you say against the view Robinson expresses). This is something that could be changed, but it would not be easy to do that without completely rewriting the first paragraph of the Philosophy section. I don't object to that being done, in principle, but it would be difficult, and trouble would have to be taken to avoid synthesis of sources. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You object to the inclusion of the material on Arthur Janov and primal therapy. That material could perhaps be shortened, but I don't think it should be removed altogether. Like everything else in the Psychotherapy section, it was carefully chosen. It may be as well to explain the rationale. After the first paragraph introducing the subject, the Psychotherapy section provides a paragraph each on the neo-Freudians, Jung, and Lacan: as each of them was an influential movement or person, including something about them should be unobjectionable. Following that, there are paragraphs on Reich, Perls, and Janov. They could all be seen as fringe figures, but they are all there for a reason. Reich, in addition to being highly influential, knew Freud, which provides an additional reason for detailing his views. Neither Perls nor Janov is so well known as Reich, but their importance should not be underestimated. Janov is a major historical figure whose importance is still difficult to judge objectively, both because his views are controversial and because he is still alive. Mark Pendergrast notes in his Victims of Memory that Janov was a, if not the, key influence on what became known as the recovered memory movement (see the discussion on pages 442-443 of that book). This is why the Janov material comes directly before Crews's comments about Freud's influence on Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, and the recovered memory movement generally. Janov belongs historically after Reich and Perls, who were influences on him, and before the survivorship/recovered memory movement, which he influenced (if you look up The Courage to Heal, you'll see that it makes approving remarks about primal therapy). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Freud's Jewishness
In this edit I've restored the following: "According to his biographer Ernest Jones (1945), Freud's Jewishness, though he was a secular Jew, contributed significantly to his work." This is a statement that is reliably sourced, in which Jewishness is tied into accomplishments of the subject of the biography. The material was previously in the article. As it was removed previously I thought it best to initiate discussion here. Is there a reason this sentence does not belong in the biography? Do we have directly contradictory information on this point? Obviously I pose that question because I have not seen directly contradictory information on that point. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That material is nonsense. Esterson pointed out its problems some time ago - among other things, Ernest Jones didn't publish anything in 1945 that might be relevant to the statement made. Please don't restore it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)