At 18.20 30/12/2000 -0500, Howard Eisman wrote:
>Each scholarly discipline has to have its own epistemology. The reason I write
>about the need for rigorous methodology in the study of psychoanalysis is that
>psychoanalysis is still being offered to the general public as a treatment of
>mental illness. Thus, psychoanalysis has to consider what types of methods for
>studying treatment effectiveness and theoretical validity are being used by
>other approaches to treating mental illness. They are the 'hard science" which
>I advocate.
>If psychoanalysis were to present itself as a means of personal enlightenment
>which makes no claim to change pathological behavior, then I would feel it
>quite appropriate for psychoanalysis to adopt other epistemologies.


I agree. But I would like to ask Dr. Eisman as well as other colleagues who
intervened in this discussion: what do you mean here by "psychoanalysis"? If
Dr. Eisman - correctly - likes precise definition, "theoretical validity",
discrete and detailed formulations, the example of hard sciences etc., he
should at least try to define what he means by "psychoanalysis" (otherwise
Popper was right: psychoanalysis is not falsifiable, because it means
everything, hence nothing). For example, by psychoanalysis does he mean a
4-sessions-a-week treatment? In such case, how does he differentiate
operationally a "psychoanalytic" 4-sessions-a-week treatment form a
"non-psychoanalytic" 4-sessions-a-week treatment? By psychoanalysis does he
mean a 1-session-a-week treatment? In such case how does he differentiate
operationally a "psychoanalytic" 1-session-a-week treatment form a
"non-psychoanalytic" 1-session-a-week treatment, considering that all along
this century psychoanalytic ideas and techniques have permeated almost every
type of psychological intervention? These are not easy tasks, in my opinion,
and this partly explains why the psychotherapy research movement (SPR etc.)
needs long time to come up with clear and shared findings.

Paolo Migone
Parma, Italy