Mary Anne Phillips

Grunbaum has charged that psychoanalysis is totally devoid of scientific grounds. Specifically, he claims that the repression etiology, the most fundamental tenet of psychoanalytic theory, is supported by insubstantial evidence and faulty reasoning. He levels two criticisms against Freud and Breuer's ground breaking claim: The therapies of the cathartic method and the psychoanalytic method were ineffective; any apparent progress was due to an inadvertent placebo effect. Even if the therapies were efficacious, that efficacy would not provide empirical grounds to validate the claim that repressed memories of traumatic events are the cause of psychological illness or symptoms. ;In regard to the first criticism, it is argued that psychoanalytic treatment may appear to be ineffective because it is tested in an inappropriate manner. An extended simile, dubbed the 'Penicillin Analogy,' is taken from medical science. It shows that if an effective treatment, such as penicillin, were tested in the manner that psychoanalysis is tested, penicillin might also appear to be no more effective than a placebo. ;In regard to the second criticism, Grunbaum's standard of causal relevance is evaluated and found to be deficient. An alternative criterion for causal relevance is proposed. It is found that the cathartic method meets the alternate standard; there is not enough evidence yet to decide whether or not the later version of psychoanalytic theory can meet this criterion. ;It is concluded that psychoanalysis is not entirely devoid of scientific grounding. Although a scientific foundation has been laid, more work is needed to establish psychoanalysis as a science. Some scientific recommendations for the direction this work should take are mentioned and discussed