Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:34:18.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Must Psychoanalysis be Scientific?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

J. R. King
J. R. King*
Affiliation:
Middlesex Hospital, London W1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In spite of the vast strides forward made by the brain sciences this century, the gap between our understanding of the brain and our understanding of the mind remains uncomfortably wide. At one end of the scale, physical scientists scratch patiently away at the chemistry of receptor sites on cell membranes, at the other, clinicians make brilliant deductions by sheer intuition, and in between is a hazy land. As the pendulum now swings back towards a biological approach to psychiatry, we hear again the old assertion that the only true knowledge can be obtained by objective observation; subjective intuition must therefore be suspect, an unreliable and intangible entity. What validity is there in this argument?

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Royal College of Psychiatrists , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , August 1984 , pp. 152 - 154
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1984

References

1 Mayer-Gross, W., Slater, E. & Roth, M. (1969) Clinical Psychiatry. London: Baillière Tindall.Google Scholar
2 McGuire, W. (ed) (1974) The Freud-Jung Letters. London: Hogarth Press and Routledge and Paul.Google Scholar
3 Clare, A. & Thompson, S. (1981) Let's Talk About Me. BBC Publications.Google Scholar
4 Segal, H. (1964) Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein (eds. Masud, M. and Khan, R.). International Psycho-Analytical Library, No. 91.Google Scholar
5 Guntrip, H. J. S. (1971) Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy and the Self. London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
6 Guntrip, H. J. S. (1968) Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relations and the Self. London: Hogarth Press; International Psycho-Analytical Library, No. 77.Google Scholar
7 Guntrip, H. J. S. (1975) My experiences of analysis with Fairbairn and Winnicott. International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 2, 145.Google Scholar
8 Glatzer, H. T. & Evans, W. N. (1977) On Guntrip's analysis with Fairbairn and Winnicott. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 6, 81–98.Google Scholar
9 Eigen, M. (1981) Guntrip's analysis with Fairbairn and Winnicott: A critique of Glatzer and Evans. Contemporary Psycho-Analysis, 17, No. 1.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.