Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:20:19 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dr Eisman posits a false dichotomy, when he contrasts "scientifically
obtained DATA" with "a system of beliefs", and claims that he "... rejects a
belief system."
In fact, the criteria used to determine what constitutes such DATA are
themselves beliefs, as well as the fundamental assumption that they furnish a
higher order of validity about some objective reality than the sorts of data
he derogates.
Dr Eisman seems to be a fundamentalist, in the scientistic tradition. This is
in itself a major belief system, and in ascribing to it global psychoanalytic
primacy, he is simply presenting his own credo.
John Buksbazen
Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute
In a message dated 12°30°2000 8:25:05 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< Those of us who feel that psychoanalysis has failed to establish itself
as science-to it's great detriment-are not "rejecters" of
psychoanalysis. Many of us are trying to stop it from dying. One rejects
a belief system. Psychoanalysis should be a body of scientifically
obtained DATA, not a system of beliefs. >>
Daishin
|
|
|