Editing Sigmund Freud (section)

===Science===
Research projects designed to test Freud's theories empirically have led to a vast literature on the topic.<ref>{{cite book |last=Stevens |first=Richard |title=Freud and Psychoanalysis |location=Milton Keynes |publisher=Open University Press |year=1985 |page=96 |isbn=978-0-335-10180-1 |quote=the number of relevant studies runs into thousands"}}</ref> American psychologists began to attempt to study repression in the experimental laboratory around 1930. In 1934, when the psychologist [[Saul Rosenzweig]] sent Freud reprints of his attempts to study repression, Freud responded with a dismissive letter stating that "the wealth of reliable observations" on which psychoanalytic assertions were based made them "independent of experimental verification."<ref>{{cite book |author1=MacKinnon, Donald W. |author2=Dukes, William F. |editor=Postman, Leo |title=Psychology in the Making: Histories of Selected Research Problems |url=https://archive.org/details/psychologyinmaki00postrich |url-access=registration |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf |location=New York |year=1962 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/psychologyinmaki00postrich/page/663 663], 703}}</ref> Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg concluded in 1977 that some of Freud's concepts were supported by [[empirical evidence]]. Their analysis of research literature supported Freud's concepts of oral and anal personality constellations, his account of the role of Oedipal factors in certain aspects of male personality functioning, his formulations about the relatively greater concern about the loss of love in women's as compared to men's personality economy, and his views about the instigating effects of homosexual anxieties on the formation of paranoid delusions. They also found limited and equivocal support for [[Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality|Freud's theories about the development of homosexuality]]. They found that several of Freud's other theories, including his portrayal of dreams as primarily containers of secret, unconscious wishes, as well as some of his views about the [[psychodynamics]] of women, were either not supported or contradicted by research. Reviewing the issues again in 1996, they concluded that much experimental data relevant to Freud's work exists, and supports some of his major ideas and theories.<ref name=FisherG>Fisher, Seymour & Greenberg, Roger P. Freud Scientifically Reappraised: Testing the Theories and Therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1996, pp. 13–15, 284–85</ref>

Other viewpoints include those of psychologist and science historian Malcolm Macmillan, who concludes in ''Freud Evaluated'' (1991) that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes".<ref>Malcolm Macmillan, ''Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc'', MIT Press, 1997, p. xxiii.</ref> Morris Eagle states that it has been "demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".<ref>p. 32, Morris N. Eagle, "The Epistemological Status of Recent Developments in Psychoanalytic Theory", in 'R.S. Cohen and L. Lauden (eds.), ''Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis'', Reidel 1983, pp. 31–55.</ref> [[Richard Webster (British author)|Richard Webster]], in ''[[Why Freud Was Wrong]]'' (1995), described psychoanalysis as "perhaps the most complex and successful" [[pseudoscience]] in history.<ref name=Webster>{{cite book |first=Richard |last=Webster |year=2005 |title=Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis |publisher=The Orwell Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-9515922-5-0 |pages=12, 437}}</ref> Crews believes that psychoanalysis has no scientific or therapeutic merit.<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Frederick Crews |title=The Verdict on Freud |journal=Psychological Science |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=63–68 |date=1 March 1996|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00331.x |s2cid=143453699 }}</ref> [[University of Chicago]] research associate Kurt Jacobsen takes these critics to task for their own supposedly dogmatic and historically naive views both about psychoanalysis and the nature of science.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Jacobsen|first=Kurt|title=Freud's Foes: Psychoanalysis, Science and Resistance|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=2009|isbn=978-0-7425-2263-3|location=Lanham, Maryland}}</ref>

[[I. Bernard Cohen]] regards Freud's ''Interpretation of Dreams'' as a revolutionary work of science, the last such work to be published in book form.<ref>Cohen, I. Bernard. ''Revolution in Science''. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985, p. 356.</ref> In contrast [[Allan Hobson]] believes that Freud, by rhetorically discrediting 19th century investigators of dreams such as [[Alfred Maury]] and the [[Marie-Jean-Léon, Marquis d'Hervey de Saint Denys|Marquis de Hervey de Saint-Denis]] at a time when study of the physiology of the brain was only beginning, interrupted the development of scientific dream theory for half a century.<ref>{{cite book |first=Allan |last=Hobson |year=1988 |title=The Dreaming Brain| publisher=[[Penguin Books]] |location=New York |isbn = 978-0-14-012498-9 |page=42}}</ref> The dream researcher G. William Domhoff has disputed claims of Freudian dream theory being validated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://psych.ucsc.edu/dreams/Library/domhoff_2000d.html |title=Domhoff: Beyond Freud and Jung |publisher=Psych.ucsc.edu |date=23 September 2000 |access-date=21 May 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110825091204/http://psych.ucsc.edu/dreams/Library/domhoff_2000d.html |archive-date=25 August 2011}}</ref>
[[File:Karl Popper.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=Head high portrait of a man about sixty years old|[[Karl Popper]] argued that Freud's psychoanalytic theories were unfalsifiable.]]
[[Karl Popper]] claimed that [[Freud's Psychoanalytic Theories]] were presented in [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] form, meaning that no experiment could ever disprove them.<ref name=Popper>Popper, Karl. ''Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.'' London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33–39</ref> The philosopher [[Adolf Grünbaum]] argues in ''[[The Foundations of Psychoanalysis]]'' (1984) that Popper was mistaken and that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable, a position with which others such as Eysenck agree.<ref>[[Hans Eysenck|Eysenck, Hans]], [[Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire]] Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1986, p. 14.</ref><ref>Grünbaum, A. ''The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique.'' University of California Press, 1984, pp. 97–126.</ref> The philosopher [[Roger Scruton]], writing in ''Sexual Desire'' (1986), also rejected Popper's arguments, pointing to the theory of repression as an example of a Freudian theory that does have testable consequences. Scruton nevertheless concluded that psychoanalysis is not genuinely scientific, because it involves an unacceptable dependence on metaphor.<ref>{{cite book |title = Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation |publisher = Phoenix Books |author = Roger Scruton |year = 1994 |page = 201 |isbn = 978-1-85799-100-0}}</ref> The philosopher Donald Levy agrees with Grünbaum that Freud's theories are falsifiable but disputes Grünbaum's contention that therapeutic success is only the empirical basis on which they stand or fall, arguing that a much wider range of empirical evidence can be adduced via clinical case material.<ref>Levy, Donald, ''Freud Among the Philosophers'' (1996), pp. 129–32.</ref>

In a study of psychoanalysis in the United States, Nathan Hale reported on the "decline of psychoanalysis in psychiatry" during 1965–1985.<ref>Nathan G. Hale, ''The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States, 1917–1985'', Oxford University Press, 1995 (pp. 300–21).</ref> The continuation of this trend was noted by Alan Stone: "As academic psychology becomes more 'scientific' and psychiatry more biological, psychoanalysis is being brushed aside."<ref>Alan A. Stone, "Where Will Psychoanalysis Survive?", Keynote address to the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 9 December 1995. {{cite web |url=http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/original.html |title=Original Address|author= Alan A. Stone, M.D |access-date=22 November 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130327083025/http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/original.html |archive-date=27 March 2013}}</ref> Paul Stepansky, while noting that psychoanalysis remains influential in the humanities, records the "vanishingly small number of psychiatric residents who choose to pursue psychoanalytic training" and the "nonanalytic backgrounds of psychiatric chairpersons at major universities" among the evidence he cites for his conclusion that "Such historical trends attest to the marginalisation of psychoanalysis within American psychiatry."<ref>Paul E. Stepansky, ''Psychoanalysis at the Margins'', 2009, New York: Other Press, pp. 11, 14.</ref> Nonetheless, Freud was ranked as the third most cited psychologist of the 20th century.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century |journal=Review of General Psychology |volume=6 |issue=2 |year=2002 |pages=139–152 |doi=10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139 |url=http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent.aspx |last1=Haggbloom |first1=Steven J. |last2=Warnick |first2=Renee |last3=Warnick |first3=Jason E. |last4=Jones |first4=Vinessa K. |last5=Yarbrough |first5=Gary L. |last6=Russell |first6=Tenea M. |last7=Borecky |first7=Chris M. |last8=McGahhey |first8=Reagan |last9=Powell III |first9=John L. |last10=Beavers |first10=Jamie |last11=Monte |first11=Emmanuelle |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129035801/http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent.aspx |archive-date=29 January 2017|citeseerx=10.1.1.586.1913 |s2cid=145668721 }}</ref> It is also claimed that in moving beyond the "orthodoxy of the not so distant past{{nbsp}}... new ideas and new research has led to an intense reawakening of interest in psychoanalysis from neighbouring disciplines ranging from the humanities to [[neuroscience]] and including the non-analytic therapies".<ref>Cooper, Arnold M. (ed.), Editor's Preface to ''Contemporary Psychoanalysis in America'' American Psychiatric Pub. 2008, pp. xiii–xiv</ref>

Research in the emerging field of [[neuropsychoanalysis]], founded by neuroscientist and psychoanalyst [[Mark Solms]],<ref>Kaplan-Solms, K. & Solms, Mark. ''Clinical studies in neuro-psychoanalysis: Introduction to a depth neuropsychology.'' London: Karnac Books, 2000; Solms, Mark & Turbull, O. ''The brain and the inner world: An introduction to the neuroscience of subjective experience.'' New York: Other Press, 2002.</ref> has proved controversial with some psychoanalysts criticising the very concept itself.<ref>Blass, Rachel B. and Carmeli, Zvi, "The case against neuropsychoanalysis. On fallacies underlying psychoanalysis' latest scientific trend and its negative impact on psychoanalytic discourse", ''[[The International Journal of Psychoanalysis]]'', Vol. 88, Issue 1, pp. 19–40, February 2007.</ref> Solms and his colleagues have argued for neuro-scientific findings being "broadly consistent" with Freudian theories pointing out brain structures relating to Freudian concepts such as libido, drives, the unconscious, and repression.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lambert | first1 = Anthony J. | last2 = Good | first2 = Kimberly S. | last3 = Kirk | first3 = Ian J. | year = 2009 | title = Testing the repression hypothesis: Effects of emotional valence on memory suppression in the think&nbsp;– No think task | journal = Conscious Cognition | volume = 19 | issue = 1| pages = 281–93 | doi = 10.1016/j.concog.2009.09.004 | pmid = 19804991 | s2cid = 32958143 }}</ref><!-- so was this ever printed? that's nearly six years ago ---><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Depue | first1 = Brenden E | last2 = Curran | first2 = Tim | last3 = Banich | first3 = Maria T | year = 2007 | title = Prefrontal regions orchestrate suppression of emotional memories via a two-phase process | url = https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17626877/ | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | volume = 317 | issue = 5835 | pages = 215–19 | doi = 10.1126/science.1139560 | pmid = 17626877 | bibcode = 2007Sci...317..215D | url-status=live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170922213218/http://psych.colorado.edu/~tcurran/depue_curran_banich_2007.pdf | archive-date = 22 September 2017| citeseerx = 10.1.1.561.1627 | s2cid = 1616027 }}</ref> Neuroscientists who have endorsed Freud's work include [[David Eagleman]] who believes that Freud "transformed psychiatry" by providing "the first exploration of the way in which hidden states of the brain participate in driving thought and behavior"<ref>Eagleman, David ''Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain'' Edinburgh: Canongate, 2011, p. 17</ref> and Nobel laureate [[Eric Kandel]] who argues that "psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kandel | first1 = ER | year = 1999 |url= http://www.columbia.edu/itc/biology/pollack/w4065/client_edit/readings/kandel_1999.pdf | title = Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited | doi = 10.1176/ajp.156.4.505 | pmid = 10200728 | journal = American Journal of Psychiatry | volume = 156 | issue = 4| pages = 505–24 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060922234529/http://www.columbia.edu/itc/biology/pollack/w4065/client_edit/readings/kandel_1999.pdf | archive-date = 22 September 2006 }}</ref>