I foolishly managed to once again entangle myself in a debate with Brian Leiter. There is at least one good reason not to try to engage in a reasoned blog debate with Leiter, which is that he doesn’t believe in it:
I am sometimes presented with the following criticism: “Your rhetorical style won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.” That is no doubt true, but, as we’ve just remarked, it is quite rare to persuade anyone by a careful, reasoned argument–indeed, so rare, that I don’t see it as worth the effort to try to do so on a blog….
Nevertheless, since I started it, I suppose I should respond. (And at least I got a laugh out of being called an ideologue by the to-the-left-of-Noam-Chomsky Brian Leiter.)
The issue at controversy is my original claim in a brief comment to this blog post on the pseudo-scientific nature of Marxism, that Freud’s “work (or at least the vast majority of it) can’t stand up to the scientific method,” to which Leiter responded that my claim is “wholly false.”
It’s rather well-established that Freud’s work generally didn’t follow the scientific method, e.g., Freud did not reach his conclusions via testing, replication, and other indicia of scientific inquiry. Moreover, Freud’s followers for decades argued that his work shouldn’t be subject to empirical testing. One could argue that Freud’s theories were still better than ones preceded it (though my understanding is that the triumph of Freudian theory extinguished some other promising lines of research), but the hostility of Freudians to scientific methodologies then retarded further progress in psychiatry for decades.
Leiter instead argues that some of Freud’s “theory of the mind” has recently been empirically validated by OTHERS who did use the scientific method. If all Leiter is arguing that not everything Freud wrote turned out to be false, he won’t get any argument from me [though that's not the same as showing the most, or even much, of Freud's work has been empirically validated. On reflection, any such debate would involve some difficult definitional boundaries: what level of generality are we talking about (e.g., who would dispute that the pursuit of sex is a important motivating factor in human affairs?); how much weight do you give to different aspects of Freud's work to define "much"?; What if a particular conclusion was correct, but the rationale was wrong? The one article Leiter cites in support of the scientific validity of Freudian theory actually acknowledges, in the abstract no less, that while modern Freudians build on Freud's genuine insights, Freud's "version of psychodynamic theory" is "archaic," and that most Freudian clinicians consider it "obsolete".]
But if Leiter is arguing that Freud’s work was itself scientific that’s another story. There’s no contradiction between having great insights into human nature–great philosophers, authors, religious thinkers, etc., have had them–and not following, or purporting to follow, the scientific method.
For some bizarre and unexplained reason, Leiter seems to think that my beef with Freud is ideological, as if acknowledging what he calls the “scientific status” of Freud’s theories would somehow conflict with my belief in … what exactly? Perhaps he should instead note that I’ve been writing about junk science–left, right, and (mostly) otherwise–for over twenty years.
One might also give some thought to the many homosexuals, schizophrenics, victims of sexual abuse, and others who sought counsel from Freudian analysts, only to be fed nonsense about their mothers, accused of fantasizing, and so on. Leiter hasn’t acknowledged this, but perhaps he could withhold some of his vitriol from me, and spare some sympathy for these victims of pseudo-science–assuming, of course, that he agrees that they were such.
Anon says:
Prof. Bernstein, why are you responding to a blog post from four years ago?
September 7, 2011, 8:29 pmawp says:
“Freud’s “work (or at least the vast majority of it) can’t stand up to the scientific method, either.“”
I would say that the “clear” meaning of that statement, to anyone who has any scientific training, is
“A majority of Freud’s conclusions or claims would be rejected by sufficiently robust empirical analysis”
September 7, 2011, 8:59 pmTNeloms says:
Sorry to comment on the non-central part of the post, but for what it’s worth, I’ve often persuaded (at least partially) by reasoned argument, on this blog and others like it, toward conclusions that I previously hadn’t held.
September 7, 2011, 9:19 pmSteve says:
Yes, quite right. I would not take it to merely express the claim that Freud himself did not use the scientific method in developing his theories.
September 7, 2011, 9:24 pmMark Field says:
I disagree with you on a regular basis, but I have to give you one bit of heartfelt advice: don’t wrestle with the pig. You know the rest.
FWIW, I agree with you about Freud.
September 7, 2011, 9:28 pmRespondent says:
awp said:
There are (at least) two – in my mind both initially plausible – interpretations of the original statement:
1. If subjected to robust empirical analysis, the predictions logically implied by Freud’s theories would be contradicted by the results, thus proving them false.
2. Freud’s theories are mere pseudoscience, because they cannot be falsified by any set of results.*
These two interpretations are inconsistent. Because I cannot read Professor Bernstein’s mind, I will not speculate as to which meaning he intended.
*For simplicity’s sake, I leave aside the various solutions to the demarcation problem other than falsificationism. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a falsificationist: I prefer an aretaic approach to the demarcation problem, and beg the charity of any falsificationists who believe I have misconstrued their position.
September 7, 2011, 9:38 pmNick says:
I would argue that most of Freud’s theories are as Pauli would say are “not even wrong” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong). The vast majority of his work I would argue is unfalsifiable due to both its vagueness and all encompasioning nature, unscientific and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. One of Poper’s insights was the idea of falsifiability, one distinguishes science from non science is that scientific predictions make strong claims about the world and these claims are of a sort that they could be proven wrong. If they couldn’t be proven wrong, they’re not interesting enough to be science.
That doesn’t mean Freud doesn’t provide interesting insights and philosophical positions.
September 7, 2011, 9:54 pmNick says:
Also does Leiter allow comments on his blog? It strikes me as a bit odd that someone claiming to facilitate intellectual discourse doesn’t even allow free comments on his work.
September 7, 2011, 9:57 pmJ.Patrick says:
I spent years in a top PhD cog psych program studying unconscious cognition under a renowned researcher. FWIW, I can tell you that Freudian concepts and theories are back in vogue, sometimes in forms that Freud would recognize, sometimes not.
E.g., the former: Roy Baumeister’s very interesting work on Ego Depletion. Freud was working within the industrial revolution paradigm that sought to find an analogue for “physical energy” in the human mind. This metaphor was Freud’s hammer, and he interpreted everything to be its nail (dreams, personality, desire…). But in the case of Ego it seems that Freud had by (expected) chance found a nail. Baumeister’s work shows that we have a fixed general store of something like “self-regulation” that can be depleted across entirely divergent contexts and in somewhat surprising ways. So, for example, I think in one of Baumeister’s tests he has subjects come in and either: (1) walk past a pan of baking-hot delicious smelling cookies on the way to the test area, or (2) walk past no pan of cookies. Then both groups perform a task like holding a hand in ice-cold water for as long as possible. The group that had to walk past the cookies can keep their hand in the water for a much shorter period of time. The interpretation being that the general store of self-control had been depleted by having/controlling the desire for the cookies earlier. (This is from a talk I heard about 10 years ago, so some minor details could be off.)
Regarding Freudian concepts Freud wouldn’t recognize today: “Unconscious” is totally in vogue as a subject of influence on human behavior, but our modern understanding of unconscious is as a fast, efficient, and “stupid” process vs Freud’s conception. Tony Greenwald’s article “New Look 3″ discusses Freud’s relevance to modern psychology in much more depth if you have an interest.
As for your debate with what’s-his-name, I followed the link you provided to his “ideas,” but stopped trying to make sense of him when I realized he thinks he’s a clown. I would rather smell one of his farts than encounter another of his paragraphs.
PS Jesus, sorry for the long comment. I guess I’m excited to think about this long forgotten stuff.
September 7, 2011, 11:12 pmDesiderius says:
You may not be interested in Leiter, but Leiter is interested in you.
Don’t think we can get away with not wrestling that particular pig. When I talk about Progressives being the actual Right-wing, it is Leiter and his ilk (it is, alas, an extensive ilk) that I have in mind. Compare to DeMaistre. The contempt for the common man oozes.
Can’t think of a better liberal champion to take him on than DB.
September 7, 2011, 11:18 pmDebrah says:
OMG, what a week.
GOP debates, the One giving a speech from the Mount tomorrow evening, and now ……
…… Freudian Rhapsody from the indefatigably pedantic VC playmate Brian Leiter!
And since Freudian psychology became the intellectual idol of many in the past, why should any of us be deprived of an updated Leiter literary flourish put to music?
I can hear it now ~~~ ())))))Leiter’s Sigmund Redux in E-Flat Minor(((((()
September 7, 2011, 11:26 pmMark Field says:
Actually, Leiter reminds me more of the authoritarian leftists I knew in college. But I suppose right and left authoritarians have enough in common that DeMaistre could work too.
September 7, 2011, 11:34 pmChrisTS says:
As an academic philosopher, I am not a big Leiter fan. However, I think it is worth noting that he distinguishes between what can be accomplished – in terms of real efffects – in blog postings and the value of rational argumentation.
I have some sympathy with that distinction. On the other hand, I think he uses it as a shield for his blogging – which is typically emotive, over-the-top-cheap rhetorical, and ‘unfair’ in the standard philosophical sense of not giving another’s argument the best reading.
At any rate, if one is not a professional philosopher, I cannnot see why one would worry at all about anything BL blogs about. I’m not sure why pro-philos worry about it, either.
September 7, 2011, 11:38 pmChrisTS says:
P.S.
I assume you meant ‘to the left of Chomsky’?
September 7, 2011, 11:39 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Thanks, thought I had already fixed that.
September 7, 2011, 11:51 pmkazinski says:
Just another example of the left’s ongoing war on science.
September 8, 2011, 1:04 amDesiderius says:
Yeah, well, I’ve been reading Montefiore’s fascinating Young Stalin, which could perhaps explain my “Left is Right” kick.
September 8, 2011, 1:38 amRoger says:
David, it seems as if you have some interesting views and opinions, but your posts always seem to require wading thru some weird long-term dispute that you are carrying on with someone else. I have never figured out what those disputes are about.
September 8, 2011, 2:40 amRicardo says:
No argument about Leiter. It doesn’t seem worth the time to argue with someone who does not have a good-faith commitment to reasoned discourse in the first place. He once launched a surprisingly pretty and juvenile attack on Brad DeLong when DeLong dared to criticize a leftist for pro-Fidel Castro comments.
As for the “left is the new right” business, I always thought you were channeling Herbert Spencer who wrote on pretty much the same subject almost 130 years ago.
September 8, 2011, 4:05 amFederal Dog says:
“It strikes me as a bit odd that someone claiming to facilitate intellectual discourse doesn’t even allow free comments on his work.”
Why? It’s not like he has any actual interest in “facilitating discourse.”
It’s Brian Leiter.
September 8, 2011, 7:09 amAnderson says:
Unless and until Leiter directs us to some source on the scientific value of Freud’s various theories and notions, this is going to be a pretty empty discussion.
Not going to hold my breath on that btw.
September 8, 2011, 7:27 amMartinned says:
What he said.
September 8, 2011, 8:18 amWidmerpool says:
Won’t someone come to poor Leiter’s defense of Freud? I’m willing to admit that Freud’s work, taken as a whole, is both true and new. Unfortunately, the true parts aren’t new and the new parts aren’t true.
September 8, 2011, 9:07 amBruce McCullough says:
What? Leiter thinks that Freud’s work was reputable and reliable? I have two words: Frank Sulloway.
September 8, 2011, 9:26 amPaul Horwitz says:
Three things: 1) I agree that David’s statement was capable of a fair reading saying that Freud’s work itself was not scientifically valid, as opposed to saying that no assertions contained within it were capable of later scientific validation. 2) I do allow commenters on my blog, and I do so precisely to facilitate discourse, and because I think it is a useful error-correction mechanism within the social norms of the blogosphere. That said, it is not inconsistent with an interest in facilitating intellectual discourse to forbid comments on one’s blog. One may question the value of the contributions one receives from commenters, or prefer to moderate comments but not have enough time to do so. Some of the posters here regularly close their posts to comments, and while in some cases I think it’s unfortunate that they do so, it’s not a requirement of the medium. Especially given the low cost of blogging, people who want to respond can always post elsewhere or start their own blogs. Print publications can facilitate intellectual discourse even if they don’t allow equal access to their pages to commenters; the same is true of blogs. I understand the many reasons that folks here have criticized Brian, but this one seems off the mark. 3) The “true and new” line is oft-used and often useful, but I’m not sure it’s especially apt here. It seems to me that much of what’s true and/or valuable about Freud’s work is true, or at least arguably true. In any event, note that David’s criticism is directed at Freud as scientist only. There is no doubt that as a cultural figure, Freud has been immensely influential and offers a rich body of thought and cultural interpretation. That he is unquestionably a major figure in modern Western thought doesn’t mean he was a good scientist, particularly by today’s standards, and it doesn’t mean everything he had to say as a cultural interpreter was right, although it was often insightful; but it renders some of the more sweeping dismissals of his work kind of otiose, in my view. Beyond that, I agree that this seems like a spat between two people that ought to hold relatively minimal interest for everyone else.
September 8, 2011, 10:06 ammikeyes says:
Freud’s work was brilliant, it offered new insights into the workings of the mind, especially the pathology of mental illness, and it changed the way we treated some of the mentally ill. But his ideas were not scientific and they were not even logical as the orthodox interpretation in psychiatry always led to the same cause for every disease.
Freud’s ideas changed as he got older. I was taught that his last analysand was Roy Grinker, MD who was the chairman of the department of psychiatry at UChicago. Grinker wrote that his “analysis” only took about six months if I remember correctly, far shorter than the orthodox method would take. Like many pioneers he was constantly changing his mind about his work and in the end would not have been suitable for the traditional psychoanalysis training.
For the past 50 years or so, modern psychiatry and neuroscience has superseded Freudian theory. I’m not surprised that you can fit some of his ideas into present scientific knowledge, after all he was a very good observer, but that is not the same thing as having arrived at those conclusions scientifically.
For what it is worth, Freud did not have the tools to discover what he wanted to know. He had to make assumptions, often not valid, and then develop a logically consistent paradigm to work with. His was a very good model but it did not stand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry.
Like many ideas his were then expanded to fit social ideology and transformed into something entirely different from the original intent. His theories were also expanded upon, often in silly ways, for decades by various experts many of whom failed to pay attention to the science involved.
When I was taking my psychiatry board in 1975 – a period when scientific advances in neuroscience were just starting to happen in earnest – I was asked by an examiner about the concept of the “schizophrenigenic mother” as a cause of the patient’s illness. When I replied that the theory was non-scientific nonsense (what I said was that the mother might have contributed a gene), the examiner, Gregor Bateson MD, became apoplectic and had to be escorted out to of the room. I was required to retake that part of the exam under more friendly circumstances.
I’m not sure how a modern observer can literally take Freud as science. He was a very important person in the history of psychiatry and psychotherapy and his ideas helped lead people (eventually) to test out hypotheses when the scientific tools were made available which in turn helped develop modern methods of treatment and knowledge of neuroscience. But his ideas were not at all scientific.
September 8, 2011, 10:22 amSnaphappy says:
FREUD!
September 8, 2011, 10:48 amCold Warrior says:
JPatrick, fantastic comment. Thanks. Nothing better than scrolling through comments for fun and winding up actually learning something. Plus the change in tone in that last couple sentences was laugh out loud funny.
Mikeyes, also excellent. Good insight.
Paul Horowitz and Respondent best hit on the two ships passing in the night nature of the spat. Leiter is a professional philosopher and amateur social critic. He adopts the philosopher’s style of argument, which is (to put it politely) to be a jackass to his opponents. He is not a psychiatrist or psychologist. He does not care about Freud As Psychiatrist. He cares about Freud As Social Theorist. Marxists (they’d say Marxians — at least they did back in my old grad school days) still fetishize Freud and see him as an intellectual disciple of Marx and the other great critics of modernism. These social theorists reject Popperian falsificationism as a test for what is “science.”. Hence, Leiter is correct that you can never win an argument with them that is based on a falsificationist viewpoint of science.
That, and Leiter is a little twerp.
September 8, 2011, 12:47 pmDesiderius says:
The wolves will avail themselves of the opportunity to don sheep’s clothing whenever, as now, the watchdogs like yourself are too busy chasing your own tails to stop them. I can’t imagine that Spencer is the first, or last, to note this phenomenon.
No doubt pinning the psuedo-social-darwinist on the libertarian is all good fun, but you have more important things to do.
As for the lovely Leiter, he’s the one who got the plum job is this crazy job market. Whatever that says about the state of academia, it can’t be good, but I’d think it would eliminate the possibility of his twerpdom being “little” in any case.
September 8, 2011, 6:05 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
An insightful post and top-quality comments (I’m looking at you, mikeyes).
September 8, 2011, 6:07 pmThe easy answer says:
And don’t stop at Frank Sulloway, or even Frederick Crews, who was saying years ago that
Saying that Freud was un-scientific or a pseudo-scientist is much too generous. Even if he had just been familiar with Ockham’s Razor, or if he had been a halfway-decent guy with integrity, he wouldn’t have tried to pass off his ludicrous ideas about “repressed memories” and “penis envy” as insightful or true.
September 8, 2011, 9:08 pmAnon says:
Prof. Bernstein, I was the first poster, and I see you have now revised your post in a way that answers my question. Thank you. I do think among philosophers there is skepticism that there is such a thing as a “scientific method” and that may be important to the disagreement.
September 8, 2011, 11:10 pmPeter Gerdes says:
I think you and Leiter both suffer from failing to distingush several senses in which someone’s work (or a theory) can be scientific.
1) Someone’s work (or a theory) can be scientific in the sense of being ammenable to empirical testing.
2) Someone’s work (or advocacy for a theory) can be scientific in the sense of being a reasonable response to the existing empirical evidence.
3) Being a useful contribution to the scientific discourse at the time it was propounded (or in reference to a specific instance of advocacy)
Note that intelligent design is clearly a scientific theory in the sense of 1. It could be confirmed by a consistent and thoroughgoing failure to see any transitionary forms or satisfactorily explain their absence. It could also be confirmed by finding a buried flying saucer containing the original blueprints for earth life. Before Darwin advocating it may have been scientific in sense 2 or even 3 but in the present day it’s advocacy is clearly unscientific in sense 2 and 3 given the hugely persuasive fossil evidence suggesting it is in error.
Note one can’t dismiss intelligent design from the realm of reasonable scientific consideration merely based on the motives of it’s advocates. If that was the test then Kepler’s hypothesis of elliptical planetary orbits, motivated by his religious conviction in the mathematical perfection of the heavens, would have to be thrown out as well.
—
Ultimately though I agree with your instinct that something is fishy in Leiter’s treatment of the subjects. However, I think it would be much better stated as saying that Leiter is using deeply misleading language when he talks about Freud and Marxism.
While these theories are scientific in the first sense and may even have spurred valuable contributions to our scientific knowledge his description clearly gives the reader the impression that one would be justified in merely reading Freud or Marx and coming away convinced of the truth of a large part of their claims when indeed they don’t offer sufficient evidence to justify acceptance of their theories. Indeed, his post would seem to imply using pure Freudian analysis (not empirically validated components of it) today is scientific in sense 2.
However, Leiter is right that both Marx and Freud’s original proposals are scientific in sense 3 while the current advocacy of intelligent design is not. But rather than clearly make this point he seems to defend current believers in the original theories.
September 9, 2011, 12:42 amPeter Gerdes says:
Leiter has long aimed his blog more at the legal/political world than at the serious analytic philosophy world. Legal scholars have far greater need to take his posts seriously than do academic philosophers who can simply ignore the emotional rhetoric.
September 9, 2011, 12:46 amDavid Bernstein says:
Thanks for this, I have some quibbles, but no particular desire to enumerate them right now. But I appreciate thoughtful blog comments.
September 9, 2011, 5:03 amDebrah says:
Speak for yourself.
You do seem to have a penchant for instructing everyone on what is important or whose commentary is worthy….
……while not being particularly compelling yourself.
But you are certainly not alone.
Amusing, that.
September 9, 2011, 9:08 amJ.Patrick says:
Your understanding of the scientific method is severely impoverished. The most serious misunderstanding is that you speak of confirmation rather than disconfirmation. See Karl Popper’s work on falsifiability, which discusses Marxism and Freudianism specifically.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory for the same reason Freud’s work was not scientific: Because the theory is capable of incorporating any conceivable evidence. If you haven’t done science, or if you aren’t schooled in Philosophy of Science, it might be hard to see why this is a problem. For an intimate look at how this works, try having a reasoned discussion with a Truther or Birther, and observe how they react to facts inconsistent with their theory. Psychoanalysis was that nauseating conversation, but moving with the destructive force and speed of a glacier.
September 9, 2011, 10:52 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I think this is slightly unfair to Mr Gerdes, although probably not to Intelligent Design. It would be possible to construct a theory similar to ID that would not be capable of incorporating all conceivable evidence. It’s only the historical context in which ID is a dressed-up God of the Gaps argument, shrinking and expanding as politically expedient. (The alternative ID, however, would have admitted that the failure of Dembski’s pseudo-mathematical research program is a serious, probably fatal, flaw.)
September 9, 2011, 6:58 pmChrisTS says:
I have been having [more than usual] difficulty accessing and posting to VC.
That said, I think Brian L is of real importance – and concern – to academic philosophy. Not because of his philosophical work, but because of his self-appointed role as the evaluater of programs and, to a lesser extent, of philosophical work.
Of course, none of his efforts would matter if not for the fact that other philosophers have decided to give his judgments merit.
September 9, 2011, 11:59 pmJ.Patrick says:
Lazarus,
Interestingly, 2 days ago while undergoing cognitive enhancement I compulsively produced a theory of ID consistent with and incorporating existing scientific knowledge that recast seemingly inconsistent teachings of various religions within a single, simple theoretical framework. The model explains life as we know it — how/why it began, and how/why it will end. It unifies the natural and normative spheres.
I explained my model to my girlfriend, and it threw her into what she’s described as an existential crisis. The “O. Henry” moment of realization at the truth of my model in which old precepts are understood in radically new and persuasive ways can be overwhelming. For the first time in her life, she woke up many times last night weeping uncontrollably from nightmares related to her most cherished loved ones dying in situations she was powerless to stop. My model precisely predicts this response in people, the same way a model of psychology might predict a particular response when a magic trick is finally revealed. Still, it’s not science.
I’ll add that most every factual detail I gave in this example is, unfortunately, true (I just made the model for fun/compulsion, not to mess w/ my gf, but unfortunately it seems that she is now inconsolable).
September 10, 2011, 2:31 amMichael says:
There is a study that looks at hospitalized adolescents diagnosed with Borderline Personality treated with psychoanalytic (Freudian) methods vs. a control group that does better over 2 years in rates of rehospitalization over 2 years or other quality of life measures. Those sorts of things are possible. Also is ‘David Bernstein’ unscientific because he can’t scientifically prove that his name should be ‘DB?’ I mean how can you prove that his mother got the name right? In part, Freud developed a language. Ego and Mechanisms of Defence by his daughter who signed her name ‘Annafreud’ is very useful in that regard. Take a clinical thought example. You see the ads where the drug Seroquel or Abilify added to antidepressants helps with depression. These drugs were first of all indicated for schizophrenia which might be said to be characterized by the person not knowing what was happening inside or outside themselves, a loss of (ego) boundaries. Well David finds some threat to his self esteem by Brian Leiter’s attacks but he is able to set up a wall and say, ‘Well, you know that’s Brian (that’s not me). And, just to further establish that, let’s cite evidence as to what an odd monkey Brian is (case closed).’ OTOH, we may have a young man whose fiance’ broke up with him. There is, at least, some, probably more than implied, criticism of him. He can’t however regulate his self esteem within his own ego; that (image of) other person has become part of him and he has a narcissistic injury as well as an object loss. The antipsychotic drug Invega, ultimately, is given on the hypothesis that it will help him establish an ego boundary and rescue him from being suicidal. And it works.
Now one might say that Kraepelin, who systematized diagnosis in the early twentieth century is usually more relevant and correct than Freud or that Freud’s excluding Alfred Adler and his ‘will to power’ that may be a predecessor to Cognitive Therapy was incorrect. But there is the model of the mind and other things, but if that’s the sort of thing you like you’ll probably want a different explainer, that have contributed to the clinical science of psychiatry. However it might also be pointed out that psychoanalysis may appear to be like case law. It is built on the success in one reported case starting with certain previous findings from case law and going on to some successful outcome; the rules uncovered along the way may be applied to another similar case and so the ‘case law’ is expanded and refined.
September 10, 2011, 11:05 am