| Abstract: | Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 24(3) of Psychoanalytic Psychology (see record 2007-10890-003). The article contains two distorting misprints: (1) On p. 257, in the footnote, the title of the author's academic chair should read: Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy of Science; (2) On p. 274, line 2, in the quotation from Marshall Edelson on "Transference Phenomena," the word "on" just before "question-begging evidence" should read negatively as "non."] To warrant the relevance, if any, of Freud's psychoanalytic edifice to the 21st century, its supporters must endeavor, if at all possible, to find genuine evidence for its major pillars or to modify them significantly in response to emerging new evidence. Such a quest must begin with a clear understanding of the range and depth of the failure of Freud's cardinal clinical arguments. I endeavor below to provide such comprehension by laying bare the epistemological gravamen in the case of each of his principal tenets. And I argue that neither the post-Freudian formulations of psychoanalysis nor its so-called "hermeneutic" reconstruction has succeeded in vindicating the psychoanalytic enterprise. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
