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