Psychoanalysis as science

Abstract

Psychoanalysis is one of the most prominent and most intensely discussed research programs of the twentieth century. One important debate in the philosophy of medicine centers around the question of whether or not psychoanalysis is a scientific research program. The paradigm case for the evaluation of this question is the theory of Sigmund Freud, who – in contrast to Carl G. Jung, Alfred Adler, and other proponents of psychoanalytic theory – regarded his theoretical efforts as a scientific project throughout his whole life. His project was continued by researchers in psychology and medicine, as well as practitioners in clinical psychotherapy and psychiatry. In order to give a more elaborate answer to the question of the extent to which this project is judged to be successful in contemporary science, it is necessary to differentiate between psychoanalytic theory, psychodynamic therapy, and the research methodology applied in the Freudian tradition. Even if Freud himself took psychoanalysis to be a scientific, validated theory, his own research methodology faces serious problems. From the perspective of contemporary science, it constitutes the most “unscientific” aspect of his whole conception, because it is generally seen as falling victim to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is therefore deemed inappropriate for producing any substantial scientific evidence. But – contrary to Popper’s prominent critique – it cannot be denied that many claims of psychoanalytic theory are empirically testable and that since the 1950s, a remarkable body of evidence that fulfills scientific research standards has been generated with the aim of confirming the central theoretical claims of psychoanalysis and the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy. Therefore, in a processual or methodological sense, today’s psychoanalysis is without any doubt a scientific research program. But at the same time, it is an open question whether the scientific endeavor to confirm the central claims of psychoanalysis will turn out to be successful. The generally accepted theorems that form the common core of today’s psychoanalytic theorizing are – in sharp contrast to Freud’s original theory – rather carefully formulated and are not particularly specific. For this reason, the relevance of psychoanalysis for the further development of psychology and medicine and the question of the efficacy and effectiveness of an autonomous psychodynamic therapy are matters of a deep and ongoing controversy.