Editing Psychoanalysis (section)

===Debate over status as scientific===
The theoretical foundations of psychoanalysis lie in the same philosophical currents that lead to interpretive [[Phenomenology (psychology)|phenomenology]] rather than in those that lead to [[science|scientific]] [[positivism]], making the theory largely incompatible with positivist approaches to the study of the mind.<ref name="Torrey" /><ref name="Popper">[[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl R]]. 1990. "Science: Conjectures and Refutations." Pp. 104–10 in ''Philosophy of Science and the Occult'', edited by P. Grim. Albany, p. 109, [https://books.google.com/books?id=5VewAkDw8h0C&q=Freud&pg=PA80 Preview Google Books] See also ''[[Conjectures and Refutations]]''.</ref><ref name="Webster, Richard 1995">[[Richard Webster (British author)|Webster, Richard]]. 1995. ''Why Freud was Wrong: Sin, Science, and Psychoanalysis''. London: Harper Collins.</ref>

Early critics of psychoanalysis believed that its theories were based too little on quantitative and [[experimental research]] and too much on the clinical case study method.{{citation needed|date=July 2021}} Philosopher [[Frank Cioffi]] cites false claims of a sound scientific verification of the theory and its elements as the strongest basis for classifying the work of Freud and his school as pseudoscience.<ref>[[Frank Cioffi|Cioffi, Frank]]. 2005. "[http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/was-freud-a-pseudoscientist/ Was Freud a Pseudoscientist?]" ''Butterflies & Wheels''.

Translated and published in {{cite book |editor-last1=Meyer |editor-first1=Catherine |display-editors=etal<!-- M. Borch-Jacobsen, J. Cottraux, D. Pleux, and J. Van Rillaer --> |title=Le livre noir de la psychanalyse: Vivre, penser et aller mieux sans Freud |trans-title=The black book of psychoanalysis: living, thinking and doing better without Freud |url=http://www.psychaanalyse.com/pdf/LE%20LIVRE%20NOIR%20DE%20LA%20PSYCHANALYSE%20%28833%20Pages%20-%2018.8%20Mo%29.pdf |date=2005 |location=Paris |publisher=Les Arènes |access-date=2023-06-13}}</ref>

[[Karl Popper]] argued that psychoanalysis is a [[pseudoscience]] because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted; that is, they are not [[falsifiable]]:<ref name="Popper" />{{blockquote|text=....those "clinical observations" which analysts naively believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice. And as for Freud's epic of the Ego, the Super-ego, and the Id, no substantially stronger claim to scientific status can be made for it than for Homer's collected stories from the Olympus.}}In addition, [[Imre Lakatos]] wrote that "Freudians have been nonplussed by Popper's basic challenge concerning scientific honesty. Indeed, they have refused to specify experimental conditions under which they would give up their basic assumptions."<ref>[[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos, Imre]]. 1978. "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." ''Philosophical Papers'' 1, edited by I. Lakatos, [[John Worrall (philosopher)|J. Worrall]], and [[Gregory Currie|G. Currie]]. Cambridge: [[Cambridge University Press]]. p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=RRniFBI8Gi4C&pg=PA146 146].</ref> In ''Sexual Desire'' (1986), philosopher [[Roger Scruton]] rejects 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|author=Scruton, Roger|title=Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation|publisher=Phoenix Books|year=1994|isbn=978-1-85799-100-0|page=201|author-link=Roger Scruton}}</ref> The philosopher and physicist [[Mario Bunge]] argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because it violates the [[ontology]] and [[scientific method|methodology]] inherent to science.<ref name="Bunge">{{cite news|last=Bunge|first=Mario|year=1984|title=What is pseudoscience?|volume=9|pages=36–46|publisher=The Skeptical Inquirer}}</ref> According to Bunge, most psychoanalytic theories are either untestable or unsupported by evidence.<ref name="Bunge2">{{cite news|last=Bunge|first=Mario|year=2001|title=Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction|pages=229–235|publisher=Prometheus Lectures}}</ref>

[[Cognitive science|Cognitive scientists]], in particular, have also weighed in. [[Martin Seligman]], a prominent academic in [[positive psychology]], wrote that:<ref>[[Martin Seligman|Seligman, Martin]], ''Authentic Happiness'' (The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, 2002), pp. 64–65.</ref>{{blockquote|text=Thirty years ago, the cognitive revolution in psychology overthrew both Freud and the behaviorists, at least in academia.… The imperialistic Freudian view claims that emotion always drives thought, while the imperialistic cognitive view claims that thought always drives emotion. The evidence, however, is that each drives the other at times.}}[[Adolf Grünbaum]] argues in ''Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis'' (1993) that psychoanalytic-based theories are falsifiable but that the causal claims of psychoanalysis are unsupported by the available clinical evidence.<ref name="Grünbaum">[[Adolf Grünbaum|Grünbaum, Adolf]]. 1993. ''Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis: A Study in the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis''. Madison, CT: [[International Universities Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-8236-6722-2}}. {{OCLC|26895337}}.{{page needed|date=June 2018}}</ref>

Historian [[Henri Ellenberger]], who researched the history of Freud, Jung, Adler, and Janet,<ref name="Borch-Jacobsen 2012">{{Cite book|last1=Borch-Jacobsen|first1=Mikkel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ifXXnQEACAAJ|title=The Freud Files: An Inquiry into the History of Psychoanalysis|last2=Shamdasani|first2=Sonu|date=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-72978-9|language=en}}</ref>{{Rp|20}} while writing his book ''The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry'',<ref name="Borch-Jacobsen 2012" />{{Rp|17}} argued that psychoanalysis was not scientific on the grounds of both its methodology and social structure:<ref name="Borch-Jacobsen 2012" />{{Rp|21}}
{{Blockquote|text=Psychoanalysis, is it a science? It does not meet the criteria (unified science, defined domain and methodology). It corresponds to the traits of a philosophical sect (closed organisation, highly personal initiation, a doctrine which is changeable but defined by its official adoption, cult and legend of the founder).|author=Henri Ellenberger}}