[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Dr Eisman misrepresents my perspective.
>
> I simply don't say what he attributes to me.
> How is it different?

> I do, however, question his certitude that he and those he selectively
> accredits with being "scientists" have an indisputable corner on a truth
> beyond subjectivity.
>

I agree that no one holds a monopoly on the "truth", but when something is being
offered to the public for a price, makes claims about its value, there are
standards by which this product is evaluated. Does it do what it claims?  Do the
premises it represents as fact hold up under scrutiny? Subjectivity doesn't work
in this climate. We don't test automobile safety with subjective evaluations of
crash survivors.

> I also question the science underlying his contemptuous caricature of female
> psychoanalysts with training as clinical social workers.

> . I certainly was not attacking all social workers who become analysts. Isn't
> that clear by now? I suspect that I am being misrepresented so that a righteous
> tone of reproach can be used. Please READ my original message.
>

> In my experience, psychoanalytic candidates from the clinical social work
> discipline more than hold their own alongside their psychiatric resident
> classmates, having generally had in fact more formal training and supervision
> and more actual experience in the practice of psychotherapy than their
> medical or, for that matter, their clinical psychology counterparts.

> Are you sure that this is the case for graduates of lower tier institutes here
> in NYC? Do you know any of these institutes? Are you familar with their
> graduates?

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.


> John Buksbazen
> Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute
>
> In a message dated 12°30°2000 1:44:44 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << John Buksbazen presents a contemporary philosophy below which is ultimately
>
> nihilistic. It may be popular with some lit-crit types, but you will find no
>
> scientist subscribing to this point of view.
>
> Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.
>
> It will do the future of psychoanalysis little good to rely on a "there is no
>
> real truth in this world" philosophy. Saying "everything is really
> subjective, so
>
> we accept our own views as being as valid as any others" is ultimately
>
> destructive. It is the logic of cults.
>
>  >>