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