David H. Chasey writes:
"IMO, psychoanalysis not being scientifically established is secondary
or
even tertiary..... The issue to me is the way
psychoanalysis has insulated itself from traditional logical and
rational
scrutiny..."

I certainly agree that traditional psychoanalysis has been unwilling to
apply logic and rational scrutiny  to it's premises, inferences, and
methods of making inferences, even to the point of being proudly
illogical. This is indeed more fundamental a fault than the absence of a
search for research confirmation. However,  I believe that logical and
rational scrutiny will inevitably  lead to either research which decides
issues or a determination that a particular set of premises and
inferences can never be proven. If the latter, on what basis can one set
of premises and inferences ever be seen as superior to others?

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.