Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:44:15.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hospers on Psychoanalysis: A Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Myron Brender
Myron Brender*
Affiliation:
V. A. Outpatient Clinic, Brooklyn, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the Second Annual Meeting of the New York University Institute of Philosophy convened to consider the scientific status of psychoanalysis, Professor John Hospers was one of the few participating philosophers who undertook to defend the scientific status of psychoanalysis against the cogent criticisms of his fellow philosophers. In this paper I shall examine Hospers’ defense, “Philosophy and Psychoanalysis”, as it appears in the published proceedings of the meeting [12] and in the process of so doing I shall attempt to demonstrate that Hospers (a) misunderstood the critique of his opponents, (b) argued invalidly on several crucial issues and (c) neglected to take into account the possibility of alternative explanations.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1965 , pp. 73 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Bales, R. F., Interaction process analysis, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, (1950).Google Scholar
[2] Berelson, B., Content analysis. In Lindzey, G. (ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, (1954).Google Scholar
[3] Covner, B. J., Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal materials, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 6, pp. 105–113, (1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Dollard, J. and Mowrer, O. H., A method of measuring tension in written documents. In O. H. Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy, theory and research. New York: Ronald Press, (1953).Google Scholar
[5] Ellis, A., An introduction to the principles of scientific psychoanalysis, Genetic Psychology Monograph, 41, (1950).Google Scholar
[6] Feigl, H., and Scriven, M. (eds.), The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, (1956).Google Scholar
[7] Frankel, C., The case of modern man. Boston: Beacon Press, (1959).Google Scholar
[8] Freud, S., The claims of psychoanalysis to scientific interest. London: Hogarth Press, Standard. Edition, Vol. XIII.Google Scholar
[9] Hartmann, H., Psychoanalysis as a scientific theory. In Hook, S. Op. Cit.Google Scholar
[10] Hebb, D. O., The organization of behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, (1949).Google Scholar
[11] Hebb, D. O., A textbook of psychology. Philadelphia W. B. Saunders and Co., (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Hook, S. (ed.), Psychoanalysis, scientific method and philosophy. New York: Grove Press, (1960).Google Scholar
[13] Langfeld, H. S. (ed.), Symposium on operationism. Psychological Review, 52, pp. 241–249, (1945).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Mowrer, O. H., Changes in verbal behavior during psychotherapy. In O. H. Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy, theory and research. New York: Ronald Press, (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Pumpian-Mindlin, E. (ed.), Psychoanalysis as science. Palo Alto. Stanford University Press, (1952).Google Scholar
[16] Rogers, C. R., and Dymond, R. F. (eds.), Psychotherapy and personality change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1954).Google Scholar
[17] Skinner, B. F., “Critique of psychoanalytic concepts and theories.” In Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. op. cit.Google Scholar