Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Science section

Quote from article:

Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg concluded in 1977, on the basis of their analysis of research literature, that Freud's concepts of oral and anal personality constellations, his account of the role of Oedipal factors in certain aspects of male personality functioning, his formulations about the relatively greater concern about loss of love in women's as compared to men's personality economy, and his views about the instigating effects of homosexual anxieties on the formation of paranoid delusions were supported. They also found limited and equivocal support for Freud's theories about the development of homosexuality. However, they found that several of Freud's other theories, including his portrayal of dreams as primarily containers of secret, unconscious wishes, as well as some of his views about the psychodynamics of women, were either not supported or contradicted by research. Reviewing the issues again in 1996, they concluded that much experimental data relevant to Freud's work exists, and supports some of his major ideas and theories.[6]

All this sounds rather impressive ("research literature"), and even authoritative, but I'd like to add a caveat or two. Paul Kline, in his own book examining the experimental testing of Freudian theories, states that “in our view Fisher and Greenberg [1977] are quite uncritical: they accept results at their face value with almost no consideration of methodological inadequacy” (Fact and Fantasy in Freudian Theory, Second Edition 1981, p. vii). Likewise, in a highly critical review of the Fisher and Greenberg book, Frank Cioffi argues that "One of the reasons for their failure to see the extent of the gap between the evidence they adduce and the conclusions they derive from it is that they have adopted the ill-advised practice of using the same term in both its natural literal sense and its Freudian-theoretical sense" (Times Higher Education Supplement, 12 August 1977). Edward Erwin focuses on the items claimed by Fisher and Greenberg to have been validated (see above) and finds them wanting on a number of grounds (A Final Accounting: Philosophical and Empirical Issues in Freudian Psychology, MIT, 1996, pp. 181-188).

I propose that at the end of the passage quoted above is added something along the lines of the following:

(Fisher and Greenberg's conclusions, however, have been strongly criticised for alleged methodological deficiencies by Paul Kline[ref], Frank Cioffi[ref], and Edward Erwin[ref].) Esterson (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer has made some changes (including moving passages), one of which I take issue with:

Cioffi has also been a critic of the work of Fisher and Greenberg.[164] In response to Cioffi, the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent. [Ref. Levy, Donald Freud Among the Philosophers, Yale University Press 1996, pp. 45-56.]

First, for reasons I have outlined above ("Science Section"), the reference to Cioffi in relation to the Fisher and Greenberg contentions should come immediately after the latter passage. More importantly, Almanacer has provided what I think is a misleading statement. Following as it does immediately on the statement that Cioffi has been a critic of the work of Fisher and Greenberg, the sentence reads as if Levy has replied to Cioffi's criticisms. This is not the case. The criticisms in question come in a chapter in Levy's book devoted to "Wittgenstein's Critique of Freud" (and the references to Cioffi are almost all citations of a chapter in a book published in 1970, well before Fisher and Greenberg published their volumes). It is in my view inappropriate to post details of a criticism of Cioffi's arguments in relation to Wittgenstein and Freud as if it were related to Cioffi's criticisms of Fisher and Greenberg's contentions about experimental claims. If a writer is cited in specific circumstances, to allow a citation to (and details of) criticism of that person's views in relation to entirely different writings opens the way to an almost endless trail of point/counterpoint. Esterson (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the wording and added the relevant refs and created a new para to address your concerns. Levy’s position re critics of psychoanalysis as of his 1996 book is that “No good philosophical arguments against it have been produced, and much empirical evidence supports it” (p. 172) notwithstanding Cioffi’s or any other later work up to that date. Thus Levy’s criticism many be reasonably assume to continue to apply, especially with regard to scientific credibility which is the issue Cioffi has with Fisher and Greenberg. I note the references you cite re the latter all (with the possible exception of Erwin) predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years. So you also need to make clear that their earlier work is under review if you propose to change the text.Almanacer (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As Almanacer has amended material relating to my detailed discussion of Fisher and Greenberg's claims (see above, "Science section") without discussing it on this page, I have subsequently amended his changes. As I noted above, the lengthy passage in question comes across as authoritative, and a balancing sentence is appropriate immediately following it. (Fisher and Greenberg [1977] even include unpublished doctoral dissertations among the studies they treat!)

Almanacer: You write: "I note the references you cite re the latter all (with the possible exception of Erwin) predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years. So you also need to make clear that their earlier work is under review if you propose to change the text."

You are absolutely right here. I had intended to make this clear, but forgot to do so when writing the draft sentence. However, it is now included in my emendation. I think it is worth pointing out here that in their 1996 book Fisher and Greenberg make no attempt to address Kline's concerns (see above), instead retorting (p. 6) that "it is not the mission of one who reviews the scientific literature pertinent to Freud's work to be highly critical (as exemplified by Kline, 1981) of every individual study (which any experimental researcher can easily manage), but rather to look at overall trend across multiple reports." In other words, never mind the quality of the studies, just look at the quantity! If this were a statement about medical studies it would be shot down in flames.

Now to the paragraph on Levy. You write that Levy wrote: “No good philosophical arguments against [psychoanalysis] have been produced, and much empirical evidence supports it.” To me that is pretty damning – of Levy. To suggest that among the numerous philosophers who have criticised psychoanalysis there are simply no good arguments, and claim tout court that much empirical evidence supports it does not suggest Levy is very open to serious consideration of arguments against his position on Freud. I also note that your paragraph provides what you describe as Levy's criticism of Cioffi's earlier [1970] account of Freud's work. In fact the chapter in question is not "an account of Freud's work", but a discussion of certain features of it. Cioffi has published numerous papers on Freud other than the two Levy cites which are not within the compass of his limited criticisms of Cioffi in the context of Wittgenstein's writings on Freud. To make these relatively few points carry the burden of the all round rejection of Cioffi's writings on Freud (see Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, Open Court, 1998) as you have done is to greatly overstate the range and general validity of his criticisms of Cioffi.

Esterson (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to differ on Cioffi vs Levy and let readers make their own mind up on the basis of the sources we have both provided. And let's not have an unecessary proliferation of section headings.Almanacer (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not place the mention of Fisher and Greenberg's views in the article because I necessarily agree with their conclusions; I added it because Fisher and Greenberg are well known researchers. The legacy section needs to include a range of different views to properly inform readers, and I have in fact included much material there that I don't personally agree with. Although I don't wish to enter into an argument about it (both because it's not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page, and also because I am not really an expert on these matters) I am rather skeptical of the merits of Fisher and Greenberg's views, and those of Kline as well, for that matter. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Break 1

Having reviewed Almanacer's edits more carefully, I have to agree with some of the concerns Esterson has expressed above. The changes made may have been well-intentioned, but their effect is to confuse matters, and they seem to involve original research. Almanacer changed the article to make it say that Fisher and Greenberg maintain their views, "In opposition to Popper’s unfalsifiability thesis." That makes it sound as though Fisher and Greenberg argue against Popper, which they do not. Neither the 1996 book by Fisher and Greenberg used as a source in the article, nor Fisher and Greenberg's earlier 1977 study, even mentions Popper's name. I am accordingly going to undo some of Almanacer's changes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer writes: "And let's not have an unecessary proliferation of section headings." Sorry, I shouldn't have made a fresh heading – it's just that I thought it might be a longish discussion and wanted to separate it out.

"I think we'll have to agree to differ on Cioffi vs Levy and let readers make their own mind up on the basis of the sources we have both provided."

Frankly I don't think that is good enough. Virtually no readers are likely to take the considerable trouble to get hold of the articles/books (and Cioffi's chapter in question is in a specialised book from 1970), so they have to rely on the Wikipedia passage for accuracy. I am perfectly happy with your tidying up process that involved transferring some items and elimination of repetition. However when you transferred the sentence citing Cioffi's criticism of Fisher and Greenberg (1977), you removed it from its appropriate place, and put it at the start of a fresh paragraph. You then followed it with a sentence about Levy that gave the impression that he had responded to Cioffi's criticism of F&G. It is only because I am familiar with both Cioffi's writings and those of Levy on Freud that I was able to get that corrected. But as I have noted above, the amendment still leaves misconceptions:

In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s work [ref], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent [ref].

To reiterate: Here you have given a generalised critique of Cioffi's views on Freud from Levy as if it was an all round criticism of Cioffi's writings on Freud. In fact the chapter by Cioffi from 1970 is not "a critical account of Freud's work", but a discussion of a particular aspect of his work, and Levy's criticisms are specifically in relation to Wittgenstein views of Freud (Cioffi was also a Wittgenstein scholar). Cioffi has, since 1970, written a considerable number of wide-ranging journal articles and book chapters on Freud unrelated to Wittgenstein, and to give the impression that Levy's criticisms comprise a general criticism of Cioffi's writings as you have done is highly misleading.

Additionally: I have checked through the "Science" section and whenever there are citings of rebuttals to writers on Freud they relate to specific issues. Nowhere is there a general criticism of a writer in the manner you have written of Levy on Cioffi. And rightly so, otherwise we could have endless additions where editors add citings of general criticisms of supporters/critics of Freud. This is not a Wiki page on Cioffi and I suggest that your sentence on Levy and Cioffi, as well as being misleading, is out of place on the Freud page and should be deleted. Esterson (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be best to remove this material for now, until and unless agreement is reached to include it in some form. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now made the Levy critique of Cioffi more specific with regard to the substantive issues he addresses in the latter’s work. I have also restored the quote marks to avoid any doubt about the strength of Levy’s assertion (cf the Kandel or Kline quotes). My point re Popper and Fisher/Greenberg was that their work was undertaken from a standpoint opposed to Popper’s, not that they directly engaged with it. Almanacer (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer amended sentence, presumably made more specific in response to what I wrote above, now reads:

In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s theorisation and method of interpretation of the unconscious thought processes at work in dreams [refs. "Wittgenstein’s Freud" (1969); "Freud and the Idea of a Pseudo-Science" (1970)], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that in this respect his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that as a result his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent.

I think it is clear that Almanacer is determined to get Levy's criticisms of Cioffi into the Freud article. He evidently bases this latest version on a few passages in Levy's book, and has not actually checked Cioffi's 1970 chapter. Had he done so he would find that in a 27 page essay there is only a single allusion to a dream interpretation, not a "critical account" of Freud's dream theory. (There is also a mention of dreams in a single sentence which simply asks how one should categorise Freud's transactions with his patients, with a list that includes patients' dreams.) Again, when Levy (p. 46) criticises a statement of Cioffi's from "Wittgenstein's Freud" (1969) it has nothing to do with dream theory, but with Cioffi's writing in regard to Freudian interpretations in general that their acceptance by the analysand is not in itself validation of the interpretation. The only other place in Cioffi's 1969 article where he discusses dream theory is in regard to the theory that all dreams are wish-fulfilments and to Freud's means of dealing with counter-examples. To imply, as Almanacer does, that the few pages in Levy's book that cite Cioffi constitute an all round critique of the latter's writings on Freudian dream theory, let alone of his views on the nature of "resistance and transference", is grossly misleading.

On a more minor point, Almanacer describes Levy as a Freud scholar. A Google search fails to confirm that description. His first writing specifically on Freud in 1987 appears to be his article ("Grunbaum's Freud") in response Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis and is limited to a single topic, that of the latter's "Necessary Condition Thesis" in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. The only other writing of Levy's on Freud would seem to be his Freud Among the Philosophers (1998), a book limited to a discussion of how philosophers have treated Freud's writings. To my mind this hardly justifies his being called a Freud scholar, which implies someone who has made Freud studies a major element in his output. I suggest this has been added to his description to supposedly give extra weight to his criticisms of Cioffi. Esterson (talk)

One further crucial point. What is such a citation of criticism of Cioffi doing there at all? Cioffi is only mentioned in the article in relation to two items, the experimental testing of Freud's theories and his opposition to Grunbaum's view of the testability of psychoanalysis and on alleged flaws in Grunbaum's Freud exegesis. A citation of a rebuttal to these references would be fine, but now that the Levy criticism has had be removed from its misleading association with Cioffi's experimental testing citation, it is a stand alone citation of criticism of Cioffi's wider views on Freudian theory that have not been referenced in the article. As I wrote above, this would be fine for a Cioffi Wiki page, but is entirely inappropriate for the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having questioned the content of the passage I added on Levy, which I amended in response to your comments, you are now challenging its right to be included at all. I find it bizzare that you think it’s OK to have Cioffi pointing to “flaws” in Grunbaum’s defence of Freud’s “testability” but “entirely inappropriate for the Freud page” to have Levy pointing out flaws and inadequacies in Cioffi’s reading of Freud when the verifiability of Freud’s theories, far from having “not been referenced in the article”, is the substantive issue in both exchanges

As to your mistaken/misleading remark on the “single allusion to a dream interpretation” in Cioffi’s “Freud and the Idea of Pseudo-Science”, Levy cites pp. 490, 491, 496 (extensive passage quote), 497 and 498 of Cioffi’s text as containing passages that are directly pertinent to his critical account of Freud’s analysis of dreams. And please note I have now presented Levy’s substantial eleven page critque of Coiffi as with respect to the "earlier" works of Cioffi Levy cites, not as an “all round critique”.

Please note that the neutrality of the current article and the Science section in particular have already been called into question, (given that in this section critical opinion currently outweighs Freud advocacy - see above). Attempting to removing Levy’s reply to a leading proponent of the “Freud the pseudo-scientist” standpoint will only add to these concerns.

In my view Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi (according to your previous attribution) is. We're in POV territory here.Almanacer (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, in reply to your comments above, I do realize that it wasn't your intention to suggest that Fisher and Greenberg were arguing against Popper. Unfortunately, anyone who read what you added to the article, and who wasn't already familiar with the subject, would probably get the idea that they were doing just that. Given that Fisher and Greenberg weren't actually arguing against Popper, we shouldn't use language that suggests that they were. In regards to your dispute with Esterson, I would again suggest that the disputed material be removed for now, until agreement is reached to include it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alamacer: You cite Levy citing pp. 490, 491, 496 (extensive passage), 497 and 498 as if it refutes what I wrote above. In fact it does not. Pages 490 and 491 do not mention dreams, they discuss what Cioffi describes as "spurious allusiveness" in Freud's explanatory procedures in general. Page 496 and the top of p. 497 relate to a single dream interpretation that I mentioned above. (And I was right to say that this is the "only allusion to a dream interpretation" – it is the only specific dream interpretation mentioned in Cioffi's article.) Page 497 doesn't discuss dreams, it discusses Freud's interpretation of somatic symptoms. On page 498 I acknowledge that there is another mention of dreams in addition to the passing mention in a general sentence that I referred to above, though that single paragraph is again not specifically about dreams, but about the whole range of Freudian explanatory procedures including symptoms, errors, memories and associations.

You write: "And please note I have now presented Levy’s substantial eleven page critque of Coiffi as with respect to the 'earlier' works of Cioffi Levy cites, not as an 'all round critique'."

First, just to clarify, I wrote that your Wikipedia sentence in question reads as an "all round critique of Freud's dream theory" (and it is to dream theory that your sentence specifically alludes). As I have pointed out, Cioffi's comments on dreams form only an extremely small part of his 1970 chapter, and even less in his 1969 "Wittgenstein's Freud". Since then he has written a considerable number of articles on Freud's writings, and even if it were appropriate for the Freud page, a critique solely based on a few paragraphs written over 40 years ago in relation to such a prolific writer on Freud is hardly worthy of citation. Furthermore, you are happy to cite the critique though you evidently have no direct knowledge of the writings to which Levy is alluding!

In your first paragraph above you fail to grasp the central point. Yes, it is okay to have Cioffi point to "flaws" in Grunbaum's argument because the citation relates to a specific point (testability) on which Grunbaum has been cited (earlier in the paragraph) in relation to Freud's empirical claims. And, contrary to what you say, Cioffi's 1970 chapter has nothing to say about testability, it is essentially about the plausibility of Freudian contentions. (You should also note that "verifiability" is not the same thing as "testability".) I repeat: On the Freud page you will not find any citing of criticisms of writers that is not directly related to those writers views on a specific aspect of Freud's work. Grunbaum is cited as criticising Popper's critique of Freud on the issue of testability. Is it therefore okay to separately cite someone criticising Grunbaum's rebuttals of Freud's theory of dreams? Richard Webster's critique of Freud is cited in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. Perhaps we could have a citing of a critique of other aspects of Webster's views on Freud? Following the passage on Fisher and Greenberg is a reference to Paul Kline's criticisms of those author's 1977 book. Shall we now also include a criticism of Kline's own work on such studies (e.g. by Erwin and by Eysenck & Wilson)? No, because the article is not about Grunbaum, not about Webster, not about Kline, and not about Cioffi, it is about Freud. On the other hand, your sentences about Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum that follow that on Cioffi are fine, because they relate to Grumbaum's views on a specific aspect of Freud's work cited earlier in the same section.

You write: "In my view Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi (according to your previous attribution) is. We're in POV territory here." Yes, points of view are fine, as long as they are backed up by evidence. Levy has written one article on one single aspect of Grunbaum's critique of Freud (the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis). In addition he has written one book solely devoted to philosophers' writings on Freud. On the other hand Cioffi has been writing articles (in scholarly journals and elsewhere), book chapters and book reviews on Freud for over 40 years right up to his death earlier this year. In his writings Cioffi displays an extraordinary knowledge of Freud's writings and of writings on Freud going back to the early part of the twentieth century. To suggest that Levy is as much a Freud scholar as Cioffi is frankly absurd.

I have given above solid reasons why your paragraph is inappropriate, as well as repeatedly rebutting by close documentation several assertions you have made on this page. To appeal to the concerns about the neutrality of the Freud page when you posted your passage about Levy on Cioffi without consulting the Talk page despite your evident ignorance of the Cioffi writings that Levy criticised is a bit much. Esterson (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In accord with Polisher of Cobweb's suggestion, I have deleted the sentence on Levy on Cioffi. I have also transferred the sentences on Levy's criticism of Grunbaum's view relating to the testability of psychoanalysis to where is rightly belongs, with the other criticisms of Grunbaum's testability thesis in the previous paragraph. Esterson (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Break 2

The appropriate response to the passage in question is further editing, not removal. I have presented a summary of Levy on Cioffi fully referenced by a reputable author with a leading academic publishing house. I have backed this up on the talk page with specific page by page detail and amended in the text in respose to Estertons concern’s re representing it as an “all round critique”. If he remains unhappy with my summary let him edit it or present further examples of Cioffi’s work which addresses Levy’s critique.

His claim that the content is “entirely inappropriate for the Freud page” when the topic in debate is Freud’s scientific credibility or “pseudo-science” in Freud as Cioffi puts it is absurd. The passage in question links directly with the preceding para as it discusses both Cioffi and Grunbaum. (I will be adding more re the latter in due course). There are no reasonable grounds for its removal.

I agree the 2008 University review sentence should be removed (the abstract on the JAPA website makes it clear its on American universities) from the lead and take your point re Popper/Fisher Greenberg. Almanacer (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the fact that the citation is fully referenced, etc, is a non sequitur. You say you have backed up what you have written, but you have failed to address my closely documented rebuttals (including in relation to your revisions), no doubt because you are ignorant of Cioffi's writings in regard to which you are happy to cite a critique.

You write: "[Esterson's] claim that the content is 'entirely inappropriate for the Freud page' when the topic in debate is Freud’s scientific credibility or “pseudo-science” in Freud as Cioffi puts it is absurd."

The two citations to Cioffi on the Freud page have nothing directly to do with Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 chapter, nor on the general issue of pseudoscience. One is specifically on Fisher and Greenberg's claims to have validated Freudian empirical claims. The other is a criticism of a specific element in Grunbaum's writings, his claim that Freud was hospitable to refutation. Neither citation is to Cioffi's writings on pseudoscience. Levy's criticisms of Cioffi have nothing whatever to do with either of these points, or to the writings of Cioffi that are cited – and that is why your posting is inappropriate. Your suggestion that I counter your sentence on Levy's criticisms of Cioffi with the citing of other writings of Cioffi that address Levy's technique illustrates that you have failed to grasp the central point I made above. The article is about Freud, including citing of responses to Freud on specific issues, including possibly citing rebuttals to those responses on the specific issue in question. It would be inappropriate for me cite other writings of Cioffi's that deal with the issues Levy raises because the page is about Freud, not Levy's disputing Cioffi on an issue not directly related to the citations of Cioffi.

Although the subject matter that started this dispute was already on the Talk page, you posted your original disputed sentence without consultation. I also think it would have been courteous to propose your amendment in response to criticism on the Talk page so it could be discussed before posting it on the Freud page. You have also failed to address much of what I have written above, other than your statement that you "have backed up" your posting on the Talk page with "specific page by page detail", ignoring that I have rebutted most of your "detail" by close documentation from Cioffi's actual article. (I appreciate you are unable to counter my rebuttals as you have no knowledge of the writings in question, being happy to justify your position despite this serious limitation.)

In the light of your failure to discuss on the Talk page beforehand the postings in question despite the fact that the subject matter was already an ongoing discussion, and the fact that another editor had advocated removing the posting pending further discussion, I shall revert your reversion. Esterson (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a chance to look at your latest post and its clear you fail to appreciate the distinction between " the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation" (and also of eg symptoms) - which is what I wrote - and dreams themselves, the former being the topic Levy considers at greater length in realtion to the pages cited from Cioffi. As the quotation I have given makes clear, Levy's objective is to rebutt philosophical objections to Freud with reference to the debate on empirical evidence (testability)and this is evident thoughout the book, including in the passages I referenced. As for scholarship, I think its quality not quantity that matters. (BTW do you need to declare a personal interest in this deabte - I note Cioffi's co-author shares the same name?). Let's await futher contributions on this topic before removing the passage in question which, I remind you, if of reputable academic provenance and full referenced. So far we've only had one contribution. Almanacer (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You write: "Levy's objective is to rebutt philosophical objections to Freud with reference to the debate on empirical evidence (testability) and this is evident thoughout the book, including in the passages I referenced." Leaving aside that Levy's discussion of philosophers on Freud goes far wider than references to "the debate on empirical evidence", you have failed to address the fact that I have previously pointed out that Cioffi's articles in question do not discuss the testability of Freud's contentions, they are purely about their plausibility. (Rather than addressing my rebuttals you simply repeat what you have written before.)

You write: "I've just had a chance to look at your latest post and its clear you fail to appreciate the distinction between "the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation" (and also of eg symptoms) - which is what I wrote - and dreams themselves, the former being the topic Levy considers at greater length in realtion to the pages cited from Cioffi."

Rather than getting into this kind of detail (which would not be relevant to the central issue of the inappropriateness of the sentence in question for the Freud page), I'll just point out that your comment fails to address the fact that what "Levy considers at greater length" bears no relation to the very specific Cioffi citations on the Freud page. (See above for why this is the basic issue.)

You write: "BTW do you need to declare a personal interest in this deabte - I note Cioffi's co-author shares the same name?" This seems to be some kind of misreading. I have never co-authored an article by Cioffi, nor has he co-authored an article with someone of the same name. In fact to my recollection Cioffi has never co-authored an article on Freud among his considerable list of publications. Esterson (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have reinstated your original passage, despite your failure to discuss your postings beforehand and the views of two editors on the Talk page. And despite the fact that your citing of Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum's views on the testability of Freud's theories is once more not in the appropriate place (in the previous paragraph where Grunbaum's views are presented, along with two other citations of criticisms of these views). Esterson (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add that Almanacer's two references to Levy's writings in the paragraph in question perfectly illustrate my point. The criticism of Grunbaum directly relates to the reference to Grunbaum in the previous paragraph, which is why it should be there along with the citing of two other criticisms of Grunbaum on the same issue. But this does not apply to the citing of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi, as they do not relate to the Cioffi citations in the previous paragraph. Esterson (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

PoC has reinstated the passage on Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum's testability thesis to where it logically belongs, i.e., immediately relating to the information about Grunbaum and together with two other critiques of Grunbaum's thesis. I can see no reason for any rational objection to this.

It also has the advantage that the sentence to which I have taken issue can be separated from the paragraph in which it was previously embedded:

In response to Cioffi’s earlier critical account of Freud’s theorisation and method of interpretation of the unconscious thought processes at work in dreams [Refs. Cioffi 1969; Cioffi 1970], the philosopher and Freud scholar Donald Levy argues that in this respect his reading of Freud is confused, that he fails to understand the nature and importance of the concepts of resistance and transference, and that as a result his critique of Freud’s scientific credibility is incoherent.[Ref. Levy 1996]

This should enable what is clearly going to be an ongoing discussion to become more focused for the benefit of latecomers to the proceedings. To reiterate the central point: The only previous citations of Cioffi are to his criticism of Fisher and Greenberg's claims about the experimental validation of Freudian theories, and his criticism of Grunbaum's Freud exegesis (" 'Exegetical Myth-Making' in Grünbaum's Indictment of Popper and Exoneration of Freud"). The cited chapter by Levy on Wittgenstein that contains criticisms of items in a Cioffi article and book chapter from 1969 and 1970 respectively makes no allusion either to the experimental testing of Freud's theories (as exemplified in F&G's book), nor to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum's Freud exegesis. It therefore cannot logically be placed either in the "Grunbaum" paragraph as a response to Cioffi's criticism of Grunbaum, or in the passage on F&G's claims about the experimental testing of Freud's theories. This means it would stand alone as a criticism of specific points in (mostly) Cioffi's 1970 chapter, even though that chapter has not been cited previously. In other words it would be a gratuitous reference to criticism of writings of Cioffi's that do not bear on his cited topics. I would hope it should be obvious that it would not be appropriate for me to cite a criticism of (say) Richard Webster's writings on Freud that do not bear on the specific point on which Webster has been cited. The same applies to Levy's criticisms of specific aspects of Cioffi's approach to Freud that do not bear on the specific points on which Cioffi has been cited. Esterson (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Esterton continued gloss on Levy vs Cioffi has now become an exercise in obfuscation, at worse, pedantry at best and relies on waving away ("rather than getting into this kind of detail") my reminding him the passage refered to " the unconscious thought processes underlying dream formation". His "closely argued" case consists of an irrelevant totting up mentions of specfic dream analyses in Cioffi's text, though he now acknowledges he didn't even do this accurately. For Levy it is unconscious thought processes, "associative links" and Cioffi's characterisation of them as "spurious allusions", that are the issue, not their specific manifestation. Clearly Esterton is uncomfortable with (and offers no rejoinder to) Levy's charge of confusion and incoherence against Cioffi, unsurprisingly so since his own work is cited in the article in tandem with Cioffi's. What we have then is an author obviously in close agreement with Cioffi responding to criticism of the latter's work not with a further edit but by removing sourced material - the passage critical of Cioffi - from the article on the manifestly false grounds that Cioffi 1970 article and Levy's response doesn't raise the issue of testability ( Levy shows that it does p46, 51 ) in a manner pertinent to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum.

Rather than edit war over the deleted passage I will be resummarising Levy's objections to Popper, Cioffi, and Grunbaum in due course. I didn't/don't see this as a "major edit" meriting prior consultation - it is just adding a valid viewpoint in an area of controversy.

I also intend reinstating objections made on the Talk page to the neutrality of the Science section (lost during a recent archiving operation) which is context for the current debate. Almanacer (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, if you are considering restoring material to the article that has been disputed in the past, and which consensus for including in the article was never reached, I really think that does need further discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Break 3

Almanacer: The reason I refrained from "getting into this kind of detail" was because we had already spent far too much time going into details about the 1970 Cioffi chapter (which it is quite clear you haven't even seen) when it had no relevance to the either of the Cioffi citations earlier on the Freud page (the only reason why a citing of a critique of Cioffi would have been appropriate).

You write:

His "closely argued" case consists of an irrelevant totting up mentions of specfic dream analyses in Cioffi's text, though he now acknowledges he didn't even do this accurately.

I was not totting up the mentions of dream analyses (of which there was only a single one on a specific dream), I was rebutting your claims about the article (made entirely on the basis of inference – or should I say guesses – from Levy's book chapter). And I had the honesty to mention a second allusion on one page to Freudian interpretation in a list that included dreams that I had missed on my first count, though as you don't have the chapter you would never have known this had I not mentioned it.

You write:

Clearly Esterton is uncomfortable with (and offers no rejoinder to) Levy's charge of confusion and incoherence against Cioffi, unsurprisingly so since his own work is cited in the article in tandem with Cioffi's.

This is getting ridiculous. We are talking about the Wikipedia Freud page, and Almanacer thinks it pertinent to get into a discussion of the validity of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 criticisms of Freud's interpretative procedures (which he hasn't even read)! Imagine how long that would go on for – for no good purpose (see below). As for your mentioning that my work is cited along with Cioffi's as if they are some way linked, they are entirely independent. My book chapter in question is limited to claims by Grunbaum that specific theory changes by Freud were motivated by empirical evidence, whereas Cioffi challenges Grunbaum in a far more wide-ranging criticism of his claims that Freud's empirical contentions were scientific in principle, and more specifically, contests his Necessary Condition Thesis assertions. The latter is the central theme of Levy's 1988 article "Grunbaum's Freud", so Levy could also be cited in tandem with Cioffi: "Both Levy and Cioffi challenge the validity of the central element in Grunbaum's vindication of Freud's scientific credentials, the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis. [refs]"

Almanacer writes:

What we have then is an author… responding to criticism of [Cioffi's] work not with a further edit but by removing sourced material - the passage critical of Cioffi - from the article on the manifestly false grounds that Cioffi 1970 article and Levy's response doesn't raise the issue of testability ( Levy shows that it does p. 46, 51 ) in a manner pertinent to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum.

Quote: "manifestly [sic!] false grounds" – I have already pointed out on at least two occasions above that Cioffi's chapter has nothing whatsoever about testability, it is about the plausibility of certain claims made by Freud on the basis of interpretative and associative procedures. You have not produced a single quotation to back up your assertion. You claim that Levy's response raises the issue of testability (pp. 46, 51). This is frankly nonsense, and makes me begin to wonder if you even know what testability means in the context of Popper and Grunbaum's writings. The pages in question are about Freud's interpretative and associative procedures, and there is no mention of testability. Likewise, the relevant pages in Cioffi's chapter are about Freud's interpretative procedures (specifically, their plausibility). I think it is remarkable that you are still making emphatic statements about a book chapter you haven't even read, and that no amount of documented refutations has made the slightest dent in your assertions. And, contrary to your above assertion, Levy's criticism of Cioffi 1970 is not pertinent at all to Cioffi's criticisms of Grunbaum. (Have you even read the Cioffi chapter that is cited: "'Exegetical Myth-Making' in Grünbaum's Indictment of Popper and Exoneration of Freud".? I think I know the answer to that question.)

Rather than edit war over the deleted passage I will be resummarising Levy's objections to Popper, Cioffi, and Grunbaum in due course. I didn't/don't see this as a "major edit" meriting prior consultation - it is just adding a valid viewpoint in an area of controversy.

It is quite extraordinary that in the light of the above exchanges, and PoC's urging that you add/amend nothing on this topic without prior discussion on the Talk page, you apparently are determined to do so without any consultation. If you want to bring in Levy citations in regard to specific issues on which writers are mentioned or cited on the Freud page, then I see no objection to that. But I must point out yet again that Cioffi's criticisms of Fisher and Greenberg's 1977 book on the experimental testing of Freudian theories, and of Grunbaum's contentions on Freud's scientific credentials in his 1984 Foundations of Psychoanalysis (the only citings of Cioffi's writings) are completely unrelated to his 1970 chapter on the plausibility of psychoanalytic interpretative procedures, and likewise Levy's pages on Cioffi in his chapter on "Wittgenstein's critique of psychoanalsyis" (1996) are completely unrelated to those citations, and therefore inappropriate for the Wikipedia Freud page. Otherwise any editor would have a free hand to come up with a single author's critical discussions of aspects of the writings of any of the numerous writers mentioned or cited on the Freud page regardless of the context in which they had been cited. Esterson (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Esterson, you state "This is frankly nonsense, and makes me begin to wonder if you even know what testability means in the context of Popper and Grunbaum's writings." This is ad hominem. Better to leave out such statements, much as you have advised me. The preceding enormous battle over some few lines in the article could be avoided by adhering to a basic WP principle: let other editors add things. It's much simpler. You add your things and other people add theirs. I happen to think Cioffi carries his criticisms of Freud to an irrational extreme, but I am not repeatedy deleting them; in fact I have never attempted to delete a single line regarding Cioffi. Esterson and Polisher of Cobwebs should stop preventing other editors from adding sourced material. That is most certainly part of the reason that the article does not have a neutral POV.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I should have written "erroneous" instead of "frankly nonsense". But let's set this in context to see why I expressed it too strongly (though I think it is a stretch to describe it as ad hominem – i.e., denigrating a person's character). I had already closely examined the relevant pages in Cioffi's 1970 chapter and documented that Alamacer's contentions that it contained pages on testability was erroneous, yet he/she still came back with the same contention, this time specifying Levy (1996) pp. 46, 51. (He/she evidently hasn't actually read Cioffi 1970, otherwise he/she would have specified the pages in that chapter.) I checked the pages in Levy, and the latter's citations in Cioffi, and re-confirmed they have nothing about testability. Hence my exasperation and questioning if Almanacer even knows what testability means. I then implicitly asked for a quotation from Cioffi's chapter (or, failing that, from Levy's pages on Cioffi) to support the claim. To date there has been no response. (The reason why this matters is because Almanacer is endeavouring to show that it is appropriate to cite Levy's criticisms of Cioffi because they are related to the Cioffi citation relating to Grunbaum's arguments on the testability of Freud's theories.)

I don't know what WP principle you are referring to, but I know of none that says that editors can simply "add things" regardless of whether other editors think it accurate or appropriate.

Quote:

You add your things and other people add theirs.

If you think this is how Wikipedia works, regardless of the content of what people add, I suggest you are mistaken.

Quote:

I happen to think Cioffi carries his criticisms of Freud to an irrational extreme, but I am not repeatedy deleting them.

I have already answered this point below (A Vision of a Neutral Account of Freud). This has nothing to do with deleting something because an editor doesn't like it, as I have carefully explained more than once above, and again in my response to you below. It is about whether it is appropriate for an editor to provide one author's criticism of another author whose name appears on the Freud page although that criticism has nothing to do with the items regarding which the second author has been cited. To reiterate what I wrote below, this would mean it would be valid for me to add a sentence summarising Cioffi's article criticising Wollheim's book Freud (1971) although this has nothing to do with the issue on which Wollheim is cited. Or, indeed, I could add a sentence paraphrasing Erwin's critique of Levy's 1996 book (Mind, 2003, 112 (446): pp. 358-363). And so on – citing criticism of authors' writings on Freud who have been cited on the Freud page even though the criticisms have nothing to do with the topic on which the author in question has been cited could go on almost indefinitely. Esterson (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I see there already is a sentence on Grunbaum's criticism of Habermas's hermeneutic approach to Freud! (Now omitted from above.) Esterson (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Esterton's lengthy and ongoing discussion of Cioffi's 1970 paper and his rebuke to me for not having read it is irrelevant. What is at issue is what Levy says, not what he or I might think (WP:OR), about Cioffi's position in the 1970 paper. The following is part of Levy’s summary of Cioffi’s position, viz: "the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact"(p. 51) in a chapter Esterton continues perversely to maintain has “nothing to do with testability”.

Given Hypoplectrus's recent and welcome contribution there is now no consensus, if there ever was one, nor any reasonable grounds to remove my summary of Levy vs Cioffi, which I shortly will be restoring to the article.Almanacer (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What Levy writes (p. 51) in the context of "associative links" in full is this: "We are not in a position here to say that [a person's] dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact, the way we are with the inkblot or random objects on a table."

1. Levy is not summarizing Cioffi's position, he is summarising his own conclusions at the end of a lengthy paragraph (pp. 50-51). There is nothing about testing in the Cioffi passage under discussion, and certainly nothing remotely like "the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact".

2. If the sentence is read in full in context we can see that Levy is giving his own view that we are not in a position to say whether a dream is or is not meaningful is a testable fact.

Taking (1) and (2) together, it ought to be evident that Almanacer's contention that it is irrelevant whether or not he/she has read the Cioffi articles under discussion (he/she evidently has not) is erroneous.

3. If you read the relevant cited page in Cioffi's article "Wittgenstein's Freud" (Levy 1996, p. 49, note 103; Cioffi 1969, p. 203) you will see that there is nothing about anything being testable or not testable, and certainly not about the principle of testability. In short, there is nothing in either this article, or in Cioffi 1970, that bears any relation to the Cioffi citation on the Freud page in the context of Grunbaum's views on the testability of Freudian theories, and therefore no justification for citing and paraphrasing Levy's 1996 criticisms of Cioffi 1970.

Sorry to have to go on repeating this, but I'll continue to do so as long as editors continue to misrepresent what is in Cioffi 1969 or Cioffi 1970, or continue to fail to address the essential point I have made about the inappropriateness of a paraphrasing of Levy's 1996 arguments contra Cioffi's 1970 discussion of the plausibility of Freudian explanations. This has nothing to do with objecting to criticisms of Cioffi as has been suggested: I would, for similar reasons, object to the paraphrasing of Cioffi's criticisms of Wollheim's book Freud, because it has nothing to do with the topic on which Wollheim is cited on the Freud page. The page is about Freud, not about Wollheim, and not about Cioffi. Esterson (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would again strongly urge Almanacer not to restore this material while it is still under dispute on the talk page. Please consider some other and more appropriate way of dealing with this situation, such as placing a request for comment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If Alamancer were to add his proposed paraphrase of Levy's critique of Cioffi (1970) to the Freud page, I propose it should be followed by: "However, Erwin has rebutted an earlier expression of Levy's views ["Grunbaum's Freud", Inquiry, 31, 1988, pp. 193-215] relating to a major topic ("thematic affinities") in Levy's pages devoted to Cioffi in terms that lend support to Cioffi's view on this issue. [E. Erwin: "Philosophers on Freudianism: An Examination of Replies to Grunbaum's Foundations" (pp. 414-415), in Philosophical Problems in the External World: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grunbaum, eds. J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 193-215].

In the Grunbaum paragraph, following the citing of Levy's criticisms of Grunbaum I propose the following: "However, in a review of Levy 1996 Erwin has taken issue with major aspects of Levy's critique of Grunbaum. He also contends that while Levy has interesting things to say about Wittgenstein's criticisms of Freud on the question of the mere existence of unconscious ideas, on "Freud's particular theory of the unconscious, Levy does nothing to show that Freud was right." [E. Erwin, Mind 112 (446), 2003, pp. 358-363)]

Again, following on the proposed paraphrasing of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi 1970 could be added: "For his part, Cioffi has criticised Wollheim's 1971 book Freud, most notably Wollheim's account of Freud's clinical experiences and the notions he derived from them. [F. Cioffi, "Wollheim on Freud", Inquiry, 1972, 15, pp. 171-186.]

If a consensus is reached on all this, I suggest that following the first citing of Richard Webster be added: "In the "Postscript" to the 1998 pocket edition of The Assault on Truth (pp. 319-327). Jeffrey Masson provides a purported rebuttal to Webster's (1996) criticisms of his key contentions about Freud's infantile seduction theory in his book Why Freud Was Wrong. However, Masson misrepresents some elements in Webster's arguments (pp. 321-322; see Webster 1996, pp. 201-204), and Cioffi has taken issue with Masson's contentions in terms that lend support to Webster's position in a review of The Assault on Truth [F. Cioffi, Times Literary Supplement, 6 July 1984]."

From the point of view of those editors that support the inclusion of Levy's criticisms of Cioffi's 1970 discussion of the plausibility of Freud's explanatory procedures, I see no reason why they should object to the above additions. More such additions could follow: for instance in the Grunbaum paragraph there is no mention of a major critique of Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis by the philosopher Thomas Nagel ["Freud's Permanent Revolution", New York Review, 12 May 1994]. No doubt other editors, with some research, could come up with critical articles on other authors referenced on the Freud page according to their proclivities and so enable it to be further extended almost ad infinitum. Esterson (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary to strike a balance. The article ought to include some material about debates over Freud's legacy and the scientific merits of psychoanalysis, but not so much that it becomes totally bogged down with minor details and debates within debates. The relevant policy is due weight. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely.

"The article ought to include some material about debates over Freud's legacy and the scientific merits of psychoanalysis…": I think this is a fair description of the current Freud page

"…but not so much that it becomes totally bogged down with… debates within debates." – which is why I have refrained from adding a reference to Erwin's criticisms of Levy 1996 in regard to the latter's critique of Grunbaum. Esterson (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If some editors think that the Freud page is unbalanced in favour of critics of Freud, then they are at liberty to add references to writings that support Freud in the appropriate section. But such references should be showing direct support for Freud's views, not taken as an opportunity to add a free-standing criticism of commentators on Freud. Esterson (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now resummarised Levy vs Cioffi in the context of his general response to criticism of Freud’s scientific credibility, avoiding direct reference to the testability issue which exercises Esterton so much to the point where he is now deliberately misrepresenting Levy’s text. (“ Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams” says Levy on p. 56 i.e. “the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact” - as I said, a summary of Cioffi’s position. Absurd to attribute it to Levy ).

I think that Levy’s viewpoint brings the article into a more equitable balance vis a vis the many Freud critics cited in the article. I agree with PoC that a balanced approach to content is what should be aimed for. Esterton’s latest proposals are not helpful in this respect. Moreover, vigorous POV pushing including the removal of sourced material critical of his standpoint by an author already allied within the article itself to one side of the debate, is highly undesirable and in conflict with WP principles as alluded to by Hypoplectrus. Almanacer (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Break 4

In spite of the lengthy exchanges, and PoC's urging that Almanacer seeks an alternative way of engaging other editors in this dispute, he/she has gone ahead and added a whole paragraph without enabling prior discussion on this Talk page. I have checked the science section, and the only author whose work has been allotted a complete paragraph in this way is Grunbaum (and most of it is criticism of Grunbaum!), which is understandable because the publishing of his Foundations of Psychoanalysis (1984) was widely regarded as a landmark event, and resulted in an unprecedented number of responses from all sides involved in Freud studies. For instance, a special issue of Behavioral and Brain Sciences (June 1986) contained the views of 37 authors from a variety of related disciplines. Grunbaum has been involved with Freud studies for over 30 years, publishing a regular stream of books, book chapters and articles in that period. In contrast, Levy has published a single article devoted to Freud ("Grunbaum's Freud", which concentrates on a single issue in Grunbaum's Foundations, the so-called Necessary Condition Thesis on the question of whether purported clinical cures in themselves validate Freud's theories), and a single book, devoted solely to an examination of the views of a few prominent philosophers (Freud Among the Philosophers, 1996). Moreover, even the Grunbaum paragraph allots only a single sentence paraphrasing his ideas on testability, whereas Almanacer has provided five sentences outlining Levy's views. I do not believe that the views of a single minor contributor (in terms of publications devoted to Freud and the range of topics addressed) merit this kind of prominence on the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The single sentence allotted to Grunbaum's views is followed by critical responses from four cited authors. Any idea that the misconceived addition of several sentences devoted to the views of a minor player in the Freud controversies should remain unchallenged is unsustainable. It invites the following additions:

Erwin has responded to Levy's analysis of Grunbaum, contending that in relation to the Tally Argument (mentioned on nine pages in Levy's chapter on Grunbaum), his appraisal is "riddled with mistakes". [E. Erwin, Mind 112 (446), 2003, pp. 358-363)] In an earlier discussion of responses of philosophers to Grunbaum, Erwin [E. Erwin: "Philosophers on Freudianism: An Examination of Replies to Grunbaum's Foundations" (pp. 414-415), in Philosophical Problems in the External World: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grunbaum, eds. J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 193-215] discusses the notion of "thematic affinities" in the context of Freud's interpretative procedures in a section that rebuts Levy's views in terms that lend support to those of Cioffi criticised by Levy.[J. Earman et al, 1993, pp. 442-443.] Levy's contention on the basis of the examination of the views of a limited number of eminent philosophers that "No good philosophical arguments against [psychoanalysis] have been produced" is effectively a peremptory dismissal of the writings of other philosophers of eminence who have taken issue with Freud's views, for example Ernest Nagel and Sidney Hook, [Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook, Transaction, 1990 (1959): E. Nagel, pp. 38-56; S. Hook, pp. 212-224.] Esterson (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer writes: "Moreover, vigorous POV pushing including the removal of sourced material critical of his standpoint by an author already allied within the article itself to one side of the debate, is highly undesirable…"

Almanacer once again misrepresents my reasons (expressed several times already) for opposing his proposals on adding several sentences summarising Levy's views. Also, the only place where my name is mentioned within the article is in relation to Grunbaum's views. In regard to that "debate", in general terms I side with Levy in his critical appraisal of Grunbaum's NCT thesis, as can be seen from several passages in my article "Grunbaum's Tally Argument" (History of the Human Sciences, 9 (1), 1996.) Esterson (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to come in again, but I really must respond to Almanacer's assertion that I am

deliberately misrepresenting Levy’s text. (“Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams” says Levy on p. 56 i.e. “the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact” - as I said, a summary of Cioffi’s position. Absurd to attribute it to Levy ).

What is absurd is that you purport to know what is in Cioffi's 1969 article and 1970 chapter when you do not have them to consult, and have not even read them. The issue was about testing, and the first quotation (p. 56) you provide says nothing on that. It was the quotation containing the words "as a testable fact" (p. 51) that I was addressing when I wrote that it came at the end of a lengthy paragraph of Levy's, and was in relation to his own ideas just presented, not a summary of Cioffi's. (I note that your citing the second quote as if it immediately followed the first one misleadingly gives the impression that the second one is directly related to "Cioffi attacks…", i.e., erroneously associates the "testable" phrase with Cioffi.) There is nothing remotely like an assertion on the question of the testability of the meaningfulness of dreams on the relevant pages in Cioffi cited by Levy, nor anything about any kind of testing anywhere in either publication. If you purport to know otherwise, then I suggest you get hold of the publications and provide a quotation to back up your claim. Esterson (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm returning to this as it has occurred to me that by writing "i.e.", you are saying that "the dream is not really meaningful as a testable fact" is the same as saying that dreams don't have any sense ("Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams"). But whether one believes (or does not believe) that something is meaningful is by no means necessarily the same as saying that the issue is testable – it could be argued entirely on the basis of plausibility. In any case, it is Levy (not Cioffi) who is saying in relation to his own analysis of "associative links" that "We are not in a position here [i.e., in relation to what he has just stated] to say that the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact, the way we are with the inkblot or random objects on a table." This sentence has no connection with his later one when he writes "Cioffi attacks the finding of any sense at all in dreams”.

Incidentally, I can find no explicit statement by Cioffi in either the article or the book chapter that he does believe tout court that dreams don't have any sense/meaning. This is an interpretation/inference on Levy's part, apparently on the basis that Cioffi refers to "the illusion of intelligibility" in relation to much dream interpretation, and in the light of Cioffi's scepticism towards the psychoanalytic procedures that purport to find specific meanings in dreams. But at one point in "Wittgenstein's Freud" (1969) Cioffi alludes to dreams "which are incontestably wish-fulfilments", in other words, he certainly accepts that some dreams have a meaning (and on the basis of a high degree of plausibility not testability). Levy seems to have translated Cioffi's scepticism towards most attempts at dream interpretation into a bald statement that "dreams are really meaningless" (p. 55), though Cioffi nowhere actually states that this is his view. Esterson (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For Almanacer to restore this material when it is still actively being disputed on the talk page was a mistake, in my opinion. I am content to leave some more time for discussion, but if no clear reason why the addition is necessary can be established, then it should probably be removed. Almanacer's comments about Esterson personally are out of place, and I suggest that he or she needs to make more effort to assume good faith. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To abort this endless point/counterpoint on the contents of Cioffi 1970, and pin down the issue to something Almanacer and any other editor can respond to, here is my objection to the current paragraph devoted to Levy's views.

No author on the whole of the Freud page has been allotted so many sentences explicating his/her views in the way Almanacer has done in his Levy paragraph. The only comparable paragraph is that devoted to Grunbaum, for good reasons as I noted above – and that only contained one sentence paraphrasing Grunbaum's views. (Perhaps I should add here I happen to disagree with much that is in Grunbaum's Foundations but recognise the extraordinary impact his book had.) As I have argued, I see no justification for there being so much space given to the views of someone (Levy) who is a minor contributor to Freud studies in terms of publications and range of topics.

In Grunbaum's case the brief paraphrase of his views is followed by references to several critical responses. Likewise, if Almanacer insists on retaining the Levy paragraph on the Freud page in its current form, I intend posting something along the lines of the following:

Erwin has responded to Levy's analysis of aspects of Grunbaum's Foundations of Psychoanalysis, contending that in relation to the Tally Argument his appraisal is "riddled with mistakes". [Ref.] Contrary to Levy's contentions on the contribution that clinical casework makes to Freud's scientific credibility, Sulloway argues that Freud's patients' associations were "not 'free' in any real sense", and agrees with Cioffi's 1970 description of Freud's interpretative procedures as comprising "persuasive but spurious links". In his critique of the "dubious evidence" to be found in Freud's published case histories, Sulloway writes of "the intellectual quicksand on which… [Freud] assembled his 'empirical' observations". [Ref.] More specifically, the psychoanalyst Patrick Mahony has observed that in his book Freud and the Rat Man he has "pointed out Freud's intentional confabulation and documented the serious discrepancies between Freud's day-to-day process notes of the treatment and his published case history". [Ref.] Esterson (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than add something like that, it might be a better idea to simply remove the current Levy material. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would rather wait to allow Almanacer (or any other editor) to respond to my objection just above to the inclusion of the Levy paragraph in its present form. In any case, when I deleted a previous addition by Almanacer on the grounds that, though there was an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, he/she had posted it without proposing it first for comments, he/she immediately reverted my deletion. Esterson (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the material immediately was definitely not a good thing for Almanacer to have done (that kind of behavior may be permitted under Wikipedia's rules, to an extent, but it's hardly encouraged). Almanacer has had every opportunity to respond to your objections, but has not done so. I am trying to assume good faith, but it seems questionable at this point whether he or she intends to do so. There is no reason why the additional material on Levy cannot simply be removed. The best approach to take if Almanacer continues to restore it might well be to place a WP:RFC so that the views of the larger Wikipedia community can be established. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a different suggestion for Almanacer that might help resolve the dispute: If he/she wishes to add references to authors who support Freud, he/she can start by reducing the spelling out of Levy's views taking up five sentences. The views of two or three other authors who have written with approval on Freud's theories and clinical procedures can then be added. Here is my own suggestion for such a paragraph that addresses the concerns expressed by Almanacer and Hypoplectus while also satisfying my objections to the current Levy paragraph:

In a detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures, Levy presents the case for their scientific validity, arguing that "Sense cannot be made of psychoanalytic interpretation apart from the psychoanalytic conception of the unconscious, and an understanding of the unconscious is not possible apart from the view of resistance (and of transference) phenomena peculiar to it." [Ref.] More generally, Westen argues for the importance of Freud's "scientific legacy" in a wide-ranging survey of the relevant literature on Freud's theory and practice.[Ref.] Freud specialists who have given a favourable account of the whole of Freud's output include Wollheim [Ref.] and Fancher [Ref.], the latter concluding that Freud arrived at "a profoundly philosophical view of man as a creature whose most basic characteristic is intrapsychic conflict".[Ref.]

I welcome the views of any editors on this proposed paragraph. Esterson (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I find myself, for a welcome change, in agreement with Estetons approach here. As he has observed there is great difficulty in making a balance of contributions in such a controversial area. Deleting sourced material as PoC suggests is unwise and unjustified in this context and contrary to WP guidelines and the assumption of good faith attempts, which he claims to endorse, of establishing a balance of viewpoints. I("he"BTW) would argue for a mention of Levy's rebuttal of Cioffi and Popper, allbeit pared down. And Levy's crit of Grunbaum should stand as a counter-balance the other crits cited Almanacer (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a pity that Almanacer couldn't make a straight response to my suggestion without having yet another go at Polisher of Cobwebs, on the tendentious (and erroneous in my view) grounds that PoC's position has been contrary to WP guidelines and the assumption of good faith. (Good faith has never been the issue, except when you alleged that I had "deliberately" misrepresented Levy's text.)

On the issue of Levy's criticism of Grunbaum, there is already a sentence added by you in the Grunbaum paragraph where it belongs, including a quotation from Levy.

As I have argued repeatedly, in my view there is no justification for a reference including the citing of a Cioffi publication (1970) that has not been already cited on the Freud page, as this would open the way for editors to add critiques of the writings of any cited author regardless of the context in which that author had been cited. Please let us not go into all that again. I have bent over backwards to address your concerns, and included references to three other supporters of Freud, including, I suspect, citations to writings that you may not be familiar with. Is it not good enough for you that the addition of my proposed paragraph would add four references to authors who have written in support of Freud's procedures and theories? Esterson (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Other than the special case of Grunbaum, and of claims regarding the experimental testing of Freudian theories, I can find no instance in the Science section of the citing of one author criticising another author's views (in fact I don't see any such citings on the rest of the Freud page). I see no reason why Levy should be regarded as an exception in this respect, and if he were to be so treated, then it would be legitimate for me to reference Erwin's criticisms of Levy's views on Grunbaum supportive of Freud, and Sulloway's statement endorsing Cioffi's views on Freud's interpretative procedures in his 1970 chapter as against Levy's criticisms of the same publication. In addition, in contrast to Levy, there is Webster's description of the 1970 Cioffi chapter as "a penetrating essay" supporting the notion that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience (a critique that, unlike Popper's, is not predicated on the notion that Freudian theses are irrefutable). This is a page for which the subject is Freud, and to allow the citings of one author commenting on another's views on Freud opens the door to any number of such additions. Esterson (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

To be quite clear about it, it is not necessarily contrary to Wikipedia policy to remove sourced content. It is in general discouraged, but there can also be circumstances in which it is desirable, for example, if the content is trivial, irrelevant, or for one reason or another problematic. This is covered by WP:DUE and other policies. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The principle of "Due Weight" suffices to justify reverting the Levy paragraph as it stands. Levy has already been cited and quoted in the first response to Grunbaum. Freud commentators of far greater weight have not been given anywhere near the attention given to Levy's views in the paragraph in question. While noting that Almanacer posted it without allowing for previous discussion despite the fact that the issue was the subject of an ongoing dispute on the Talk page, in accord with PoC's suggestion above I intend to revert this paragraph, on the additional grounds of WP:DUE. I hope there will be other responses to my proposed replacement paragraph (which gives a second reference to Levy on a different topic to the first citation). Esterson (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PoC and Esterton need to consult WP:STRUCTURE, quote: “care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.” As was pointed out by HypoC at the very start of these exchanges when he questioned the neutrality of the article the critics significantly outnumber the defenders of Freud as it stands – even with the inclusion of the Levy para. There is therefore no consensus that removal of the text under WP:DUE is called for. PoC’s is one POV amongst others; the content is an account on the Science page of the evidentiary status of Freudian theory and is problematic only from the standpoint Esterton, Cioffi et al adopt. Other content has been previously questioned as problematic from a pro-Freud standpoint without recourse to removing the questionable content from the article. Almanacer (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reposting the originating commment by Hypoplectrus which got lost in an archiving operation. Almanacer (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some progress was made in restoring balance to the lead. Apart from the first few lines, however, the "Science" section remains totally biased, with hardly any commentators from within psychiatry or within the sciences and almost all the sources after the first lines being avowed Freud-bashers and old references as well. It's silly that an immunologist is quoted and called out for his Nobel prize while a neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel (also a Nobel laureate) is ignored, no doubt due to the fact that the non-scientist writer(s) of this section never heard of Eric Kandel. The immunologist's comments should be stricken--unless psychiatrists are now considered authorities on immunology and vice versa.

If the "Science" section is to remain what it now is--a free-for-all of voices in the controversy over the scientific status of psychoanalysis--then the Kandel quote I posted in previous sections should be added to the "Science" section in a prominent position. But I don't really understand why the "Science" section has the title "Science," as it really is just a log of criticisms of Freud from weak unauthoritative sources. It should be called "Criticism."

I once again suggest that criticisms of Freud be broken out into a separate section or even a separate article so that this article can do the job of explaining who Freud was and what he did without polemical interference. Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer writes:

As was pointed out by HypoC at the very start of these exchanges when he questioned the neutrality of the article the critics significantly outnumber the defenders of Freud as it stands – even with the inclusion of the Levy para.

The paragraph I have proposed above contains strong statements of the views of four authors in support of various aspects of Freud's output, including quotations by three of them. It is difficult to see how much further I could reasonably be expected to go to address Alamanacer's concerns about what he feels is an imbalance on the Freud page short of searching for even more such commentators in support of Freud.

As usual Almanacer has failed to address both reasons (see above) for my criticism of his Levy paragraph as posted on the Freud page, but simply reiterates that he insists on retaining it in its present form. Rather than approach the issue in a conciliatory manner, he maintains that the paragraph is problematic only from the standpoint "Esterson, Cioffi et al adopt", with the implication that any editor can legitimately add numerous sentences quoting a favoured commentator's views and reject any criticism of such a way of proceeding on the false grounds that opposition is predicated on disagreement with the views of the said commentator.

Who "et al" refers to is obscure, though one candidate could be Frank Sulloway, who agrees with Cioffi's 1970 description of Freud's interpretative procedures as comprising "persuasive but spurious links", and argues (contrary to Levy [p. 47]) that Freud's patients' associations were "not 'free' in any real sense", and that the "dubious evidence" assembled by Freud was founded on the "the intellectual quicksand on which… he assembled his 'empirical' observations". Another could be the philosopher Edward Erwin, who wrote in the philosophical journal Mind that one section of Levy's critique of Grunbaum is "riddled with mistakes". I could, of course, add a paragraph including the views of these authors, and it would be justified if the paragraph containing an excessive (five sentences) paraphrasing of the views of a single commentator is retained -- moreover a commentator who can hardly be regarded as a major figure compared with many of the other authors cited on the Freud page.

Given that I have striven to address Almanacer's concerns, and have gone a considerable way to satisfy them as stated originally, I shall be replacing his paragraph with one providing the views of four authors highly favourable towards Freud. If Almanacer has an objection to the new paragraph I urge him to explain his objections on the Talk page and refrain from reverting it prior to a discussion of his objections. Esterson (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

With regard to Esterton's proposed new para I have following comments:  

1, I would not describe the Levy text as a "detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures".  It is, rather, a response to what he regards as misunderstandings or misrepresentations of them by various authors. 

2. The quote from Levy he has chosen does not link to the issue raised in the previous para in the article, the central issue of  the evidentiary status of Freudian theory as put into question by the refs to Cioffi, his own work and others.

3. Comments favourable or not on "the whole of Freud's output" are not appropriate to the Science section. Almanacer (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again Almanacer has shown he has little regard for a conciliatory approach to disputes by deleting my paragraph immediately, before I have even had any opportunity to respond to his objections to it, while reinstating his own paragraph though he has repeatedly failed to address the reasons I have laid out above that the paragraph is inappropriate. (Leaving aside all the discussion above, I allowed more than 48 hours for comments on my proposed paragraph before deleting Almanacer's paragraph, which anyway he had posted without consultation several days ago in disregard of the fact that the topic was the matter of an ongoing dispute on the Talk page.) I shall therefore address his objections below, including an acceptance of his point (3) and the replacement of two references with two more appropriate ones as indicated below, and reinstate my paragraph which, I repeat, goes a considerable way to address his concerns as expressed at the beginning of this dispute.

My response to Almanacer's points above:

1. The pages I cited in the reference are indeed a detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures, albeit in the context of other authors' views. Levy repeatedly spells out these interpretative procedures in favourable terms, providing his own positive account of their merits. Incidentally, there are not "various authors" involved in the discussions I cited, only two.

2. Why should the quotation from Levy I chose have to link with issues raised in the previous paragraph? (None of the other paragraphs in the Science section link directly to the previous paragraph.) The paragraph as a whole, like other paragraphs in the same section, is a stand alone one citing four authors who have published on Freud.

3. There is justice in your third point, though I find it of interest that you have expressed no objection to the citing of Gilbert Ryle and David Stafford-Clark making very large general claims favourable to Freud in the first paragraph of the Science section.

In the light of your valid criticism (3) I propose to replace the sentences citing Fancher and Wollheim with the following:

Hartmann makes the case for psychoanalysis as a scientific theory, arguing, for instance, that the richness of the data from the analytic setting makes psychoanalysis the via regia of the psychology of personality. Fromm also argues for the validity of "Freud's scientific method" in his discussion of the merits and limitations of Freud's theories. Esterson (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Break 5

Having seen what has happened with the science section recently, I think it would be best if all concerned left it as it is for the moment. It is not a good idea to make major changes without prior discussion. Personally, I think most of Esterson's edits improvements; if Alamancer or other editors disagree, they ought to establish a firm consensus before removing or changing them in any significant way (though I do think some copy editing could be done to make them more succinct). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I reject Esterton's accusation of a non-conciliatory approach in this dispute. I amended the para on Levy on two separate occassions in response to his comments. The substantive issue here remains his removal from the article of a description of Levy's support for the evidential staus of Freudian theory in the context of previous citations of a number of authors who question it, himself included. I will be restoring the deleted passage which applies appropraite balance to the pre-existing content the neutrality of which has already been called into question (see above remarks from Hypo). If he wishes to add further remarks from Levy, Hartmann, Fromm or any other relevant source I have no objection. Almanacer (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that your comments properly address the problems with this material, which Esterson has pointed out at length. Consequently, I have restored the passage to what it was before. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of prolonging the agony by addressing Hypoplectrus's comments that Almanacer reinstated, but since he has mentioned them again, here are a few points. Leaving aside his/her inappropriate use of the term "Freud-bashers" for critics of Freud, I'm puzzled why the age of an author's criticisms of Freud on the issue of its scientific status has any relevance. Freud finished publishing by 1940, so any knowledgeable discussion of the scientific credentials of Freud's theories in the third quarter of the last century is as worthy of consideration as any that were published at later dates. On the immunologist in question, Peter Medawar, he was a major figure in the British scientific community who has written wide-ranging articles on Freud and psychoanalysis. (See in a collection of his articles Pluto's Republic.) How does Hypoplectrus know how qualified Medawar is to write knowledgeably about Freud? It is not necessary to take a lengthy course in higher education on Freud's theory and practice before one can grasp the nature of these. More generally, I have checked through the names cited in the Science section and with the possible exception of Lydiard H. Horton of whom I know nothing, all of them have written substantive works published by reputable publishers or scholarly journals on the issues on which they have been cited. If Hypoplectrus, or any other editor, wishes to add to the Science section appropriate and proportionate citings of one or another authors who support Freud's position, then let him/her do so. Esterson (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Almancer writes:

I reject Esterton's accusation of a non-conciliatory approach in this dispute. I amended the para on Levy on two separate occassions in response to his comments.

But (1) your amended versions did not address the central reasons why I objected to your postings. (2) Although there was an ongoing dispute, in no instance did you have the courtesy to post your amended versions on the Talk page for discussion before posting. (3) I spent a considerable time laying out my objections before reverting your posting the first time, and in the last instance, allowed plenty of time for comments on an alternative paragraph before reverting your version and replacing it by mine. In contrast, immediately mine went up, you immediately reverted them before anyone had the opportunity to discuss your intentions. That is why I described your approach as non-conciliatory.

You cite with evident approval Hypoplectrus's concern for balance in the Science section, yet when I posted a paragraph citing the views of four authors who have published in support of the scientific credentials of Freud's theories, you immediately reverted it!

Since you have repeatedly failed to address my central objections to your Levy paragraph, I shall repeat them here again. (i) To allow the referencing of criticisms of a particular author's writings on Freud (in this case of a book chapter not even previously cited on the Freud page) opens the way to criticisms of the writings of any other author cited, which would not only be inappropriate for a Freud page, it would potentially enable an endless extension of the page almost ad infinitum. (2) The devoting of a whole paragraph (in this instance five sentences) to one author's views does not occur for any other name in the Science section, and in the case of Levy is especially disproportionate given that he is a relatively minor player in the field of Freud studies in terms of numbers of publications devoted to Freud and the limited range of subject matter addressed in them. As it is, with my added paragraph, Levy has two citations, which seems to me sufficient. Esterson (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

PoC/Esterton - We all have to live with contributions on WP we object to but which are valid contributions according to WP rules and guidelines. In this case I don't see any reason why both contributions (mine and Esterton's) can't be included. They are complementary. With regard to Esterons restated objection re 2 there is less text on Levy than Fisher and Greenberg. Re 1, contributions need assessing on a case by case basis in accordance with WP guidelines not one's invented by EstertonAlmanacer (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Fisher and Greenberg are allowed several sentences spelling out their conclusions on experimental testing of Freudian theories (as I acknowledged when this specific point arose before), but there is some justification in their case, as these conclusions have been cited in a huge range of publications from scholarly articles to College texts. There is no such justification in the case of Levy. Also, the claims are followed by citings to three authors who challenge the purported findings.

You still have not addressed my point about the relatively minor role Levy has played in Freud scholarship in terms of publications (one book, one article) and the limited range of subject matter therein, i.e., the wholly disproportionate amount of space you have given to his views (a whole paragraph, five sentences). No other author discussing the issues revolving around the scientific credentials of Freudian theories (other than F&G on the specialist topic of experimental testing) has been allotted anywhere this amount of space to their views. You have thus not addressed my objection that the Levy paragraph is utterly disproportionate to the contributions he has made to Freud studies compared with a considerable number of other authors cited in the Science section. You have also failed to address the second objection I made.

Given that you have still not addressed my objections repeated above, that you once again peremptorily and discourteously reverted my paragraph and reinstated your own without allowing me the time to respond to your comment on the Talk page, that the reverted paragraph provides references to four authors supportive of Freud in accord with the concerns expressed by you and Hypoplectrus, and that you have ignored Polisher of Cobwebs' plea that you cease reinstating your paragraph until other editors have been drawn in to express their views, I shall revert your reversion. Esterson (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now requested assistance for dispute resolution. See your Talk page. Esterson (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Alamancer, you may feel strongly that you are in the right, but at present there are two editors who actively disagree with you (Esterson and myself), and no editors who have recently supported you on the talk page. Although content disputes in Wikipedia are not resolved simply through voting, or head counts of which editors support which position in a given dispute, these are not circumstances under which you ought to continue reverting. Instead, please consult the wider Wikipedia community to try to establish where consensus lies. If your views are correct, then there should be a good chance the larger community will support you - but you need to first establish that they do support you before reverting back to your preferred version. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the dispute has now been referred for dispute resolution, Alamancer has gone ahead and posted his full Levy paragraph with its completely disproportionate five lines devoted to a single relatively minor contributor to Freud scholarship (plus the sentences I proposed with references to three other authors with favourable views on the scientific credentials of Freud's theories).

One sentence reads:

On this basis he rejects as confused and incoherent Cioffi’s attempt to portray Freud’s interpretive method as “spinning webs of pseudo-meaning” and as on a par with new-age Pyramidology

This is really slipshod. There is no indication where one finds "Cioffi's attempt...", so it places Levy's criticism in a vacuum. Moreover, it is not clear whether the phrase "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" is Cioffi's or Levy's. To my mind it reads as if it is Cioffi's. So, Almanacer, please make it clear and provide any missing appropriate citation(s). Esterson (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Almanacer is behaving wrongly in continuing to revert, I'm going to hold back from reverting him right away. It's best under these circumstances to see what other editors have to say on this issue, even though the wait may be frustrating. SlimVirgin said a while ago that she would look at this dispute; it might help if she were to comment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing, as PoC is fully aware is responding to his and Esterton's reverting my fully sourced text by a reputable author on the central topic of Freud's scientific credibility. I am re-reverting, they continue hitherto (PoC latest is a welcome change) to revert lately with a substitute quotation from Levy which does not address the scientific credibility issue. They have nor can they demonstrate any consensus for their actions and have therefore no grounds to ask me to demonstrate one for mine. Status quo ante bellum should obtain until the dispute is settled.

I'm happy to respond to Esterton's latest remarks on the content of the Levy para once he drops his absurd claim that it's "completely disproportionate" and desists from reverting it. Since I pointed out that Fisher and Greenberg get more space than Levy he's now arguing that disproportionality has to be assessed on the basis of his own consideration of Levy's standing in the total output of Freud scholarship. Not remotely plausible given that Levy's standpoint is in direct opposition to his own. Currently Freud critics in the article outnumber advocates 2 to 1, the latter merit more space not less. His appeal to WP:UNDUE is totally lacking in credibility. Almanacer (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be both misreading content policies such as WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's rules about editor behavior. There is no rule saying that sourced material cannot be removed from articles - as I said before, although doing so is considered undesirable in general, it can be desirable or even absolutely necessary in particular situations. You're also plain wrong in suggesting that whether the Levy text is disproportionate or not depends on what views Esterson personally holds or whether he agrees with Levy or not. Material either is disproportionate or it isn't, regardless of who wants to remove it. Please review WP:AGF and avoid personalizing disputes in this way. WP:NPOV certainly does not demand that critics and supporters of a man or his ideas must be given equal space in an article, and it would be an absurd policy if it did. Rather, it requires that articles reflect the balance of scholarly opinion. If scholarly opinion of a theory is predominantly favorable, then more space should be given to favorable than to negative views - and the other way around if scholarly opinion is predominantly negative. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Where the behavioral aspect of things is concerned, your behavior is also quite unsatisfactory. There may not be a consensus in the strict sense for the version of the science section Esterson and I prefer, but no one other than you is currently arguing for your preferred version. For you to say that it's absolutely fine for you to keep reverting under these conditions is just ridiculous. Rules like WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS are absolutely intended to stop that kind of behavior. I'm holding back from reverting you for now in the hopes that discussion can resolve this, but I offer no guarantee that I won't revert you in future. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Again I have to respond to Almancer's misleading posting above point by point, including having to repeat what I've said before.

1. The fact that the Levy passage is fully sourced is a red herring. No one is disputing that.

2. It is not the case that my replacement quotation from Levy did not address the scientific credibility issue. My three line sentence started by saying that Levy presents the case for the scientific validity of Freud's interpretative procedures, and provided a lengthy supportive quotation which included the importance of the concepts of resistance and transference – just as yours does!

3. "Status quo ante bellum" means that we should go back to before the posting of the disputed paragraph by you.

4. Almanacer writes:

"Since I pointed out that Fisher and Greenberg get more space than Levy he's now arguing that disproportionality has to be assessed on the basis of his own consideration of Levy's standing in the total output of Freud scholarship."

Not for the first time, Almanacer misrepresents the situation. All my objections were put earlier, so it is not a case of my now putting a fresh argument in response to his latest message. I pointed out that, in contrast to Levy 1996, the Fisher and Greenberg 1977 volume has been cited in a huge number of articles and College psychology texts. I will add here that, unlike the Levy passage, the sentences devoted to F&G do not give their views on Freud's theories, but are a summary of the results of experimental testing of Freudian theories. And what I provided was not my consideration of Levy's standing but a factual statement of the very limited contribution Levy has made to Freud scholarship in terms of publications.

5. Quote: "Not remotely plausible given that Levy's standpoint is in direct opposition to his own."

First, I have pointed out before that my objections have nothing to do with my views on Levy, and that I would equally object if there was a passage outlining Cioffi's trenchant views on Wollheim's Freud (as the latter publication has not been cited in the context of scientific credibility). Second, it is not the case that I oppose Levy's standpoint tout court. On the contrary, I largely agree with his criticisms of Grunbaum, a celebrated critic of Freud. Third, my own paragraph gave three lines to Levy, including a quotation from Levy 1996, plus references to three other pro-Freud authors' views.

I have not checked Almanacer's 2:1 ratio statement, but tentatively accept it is something of that order. (I will however note that a considerable number of citations relate to authors who have developed psychoanalysis from its original orthodox Freudian base, and I wonder how Almanacer judges these.) I suspect the imbalance is largely due to that found in the Science section. However, such an imbalance in the Science section does not reflect bias, but is roughly what one might expect, given that anti-Freud authors set great store on the scientific issue, whereas this is not the case for many advocates of Freud. The eminent psychoanalyst and Freud biographer Louis Breger argues that psychoanalysis is not a science, several notable authors argue that it is an hermeneutic (interpretative) discourse, not a scientific discipline (Habermas, Ricoeur, George Klein, Schafer and Spence), and many psychoanalytic writers regard the "scientific" issue as of no great importance.

Why Almanacer sets conditions for his dealing with my pointing out deficiencies in his sentence on the Freud page pertaining to Levy's criticisms of Cioffi is a mystery, especially as no one is currently suggesting that his paragraph be reverted while it is has been referred to Wikipedia dispute resolution. Esterson (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with PoC (on the dispute page[1]) that the Science section should be tidied up and reduced in size (which whould reduce the anti-Freud citations), but how one would set about this given the disagreements about what is important I have no idea. It would be a major task for any editor to undertake. Esterson (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don’t propose to argue the toss with PoC over WP rules and guidelines other than to remind him the default is to edit, discuss and re-edit, which is what I have done (in reponse to Estertons's comments). His claim that I am unwilling to compromise is a misrepresentation. If we take his view than any text can be reverted then only re-reverted after an agreed consensus is formed much good editorial work would be discouraged. And that is why the staut quo ante bellum should include my Levy edit. I’m glad to see this seems agreed, at least pro tem.

My referencing of the Levy passage is as precise, if not more so than the 30 or so page reference he gave for his one sentence quotation from Levy. Page 55 has the "spinning" quote. What I would call shoddy editing is reference-mining from an academic database, plonking the results in brackets and appending it to any remotely positive account of Freudian theory eg the Fisher/Greenberg passage (all the references,BTW, predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years !).

What I said re his replacement text was the quote from Levy which Esterton includes doesn’t mention the scientific credibility issue, thus making the passage of less relevance than the text I provided and therfore less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al.

See the dispute page for further my response to the issues Esterton raises. Almanacer (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Almancer writes: "If we take his [Esterson's] view that any text can be reverted then only re-reverted after an agreed consensus is formed much good editorial work would be discouraged."

Almanacer: It would be nice if you would not misrepresent what other editors have said. I have never said that no text should ever be reverted without an agreed consensus. I wrote that it is discourteous to add/amend a passage without consultation while the topic is under dispute on the Talk page.

You wrote: "My referencing of the Levy passage is as precise, if not more so than the 30 or so page reference he gave for his one sentence quotation from Levy. Page 55 has the 'spinning' quote."

More misrepresentation. My citation "pp. 23-56" was for the "detailed discussion of Freud's interpretative procedures" in which "Levy presents the case for their scientific validity…" If this had remained on the Freud page, and you had pointed out that I had not specified the page for the quotation that followed I would happily have added that to the reference. Contrast this with your behaviour. You state "P. 55 has the spinning quote" as if this is an answer to my question. I asked you to make clear whether the words "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" are Levy's or Cioffi's. From your writing Levy "rejects… Cioffi's attempt to portray Freud's interpretative method as 'spinning webs of pseudo-meaning'…" it seems to me to read as if the expression is Cioffi's. Given the ambiguity, I asked you to make clear whose it is. Please answer the question instead of evading it. My second point was that you write of "Cioffi's attempt…" without any indication of what article Levy is addressing, leaving Levy's criticisms in a vacuum. Again you failed to address that point.

You write: "What I said re his replacement text was the quote from Levy which Esterton includes doesn’t mention the scientific credibility issue, thus making the passage of less relevance than the text I provided and therfore less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al."

As I've already pointed out, I specifically mentioned the context of "Freud’s scientific credibility", and the quotation I gave in this context included Levy's alluding to the central importance of resistance and transference phenomena – concepts you yourself highlighted in your sentences paraphrasing Levy's views in this context.

Who would dream from your writing that my three-line sentence on Levy is "less of a balancing factor to Webster, Crews et al." that I followed it up by citing the views of three more authors favourable to Freud on the "scientific" issue.

You write: "What I would call shoddy editing is reference-mining from an academic database, plonking the results in brackets and appending it to any remotely positive account of Freudian theory…"

I have no idea what you are talking about. All my references, such as to the responses to the Fisher and Greenfield results that you specify, are from publications I have on my bookshelves, or articles in my filing cabinets or in my computer files.

You write: "all the references, BTW, predate their 1996 work, Cioffi’s by 20 years!"

You already made this point early in this Science section, and I responded to it, and amended the wording on the Freud page to indicate that the responses were to F&G's earlier more extensive 1977 volume on experimental studies. (I have now made a small further clarification amendment.) The citations I gave remain valid because at the end of each topic section in the 1996 volume F&G summarise their 1977 results, and because F&G's appraisals of the post-1977 studies suffer from the same methodological deficiencies which were highlighted by the critics of the 1977 volume. That F&G have not made any concessions to critics is illustrated by their brushing them aside, including (see above) Kline's pointing out that they "are quite uncritical, and accept results at their face value with almost no consideration of methodological inadequacy".

I await your clarification as to whether the words "spinning webs of pseudo-meaning" are Levy's or Cioffi's, and for you to rectify the omission of citation for the publication of Cioffi's that Levy is criticising. Esterson (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, but it's too much to read. Of the two versions that people were reverting, I prefer PoC's, in case that helps. More broadly, I'd say the problem with the science section, and the article overall, is that it's trying to cram in too much opinion, and is left to including sound bites from each person. So you would need to be familiar with the material from elsewhere in order to understand this article, and if you're already familiar with it, why read it here? In other words, you're not writing for your audience.

If I were writing this section (or any of the others in the Legacy section), I would lay out the issues, then give examples of people who had discussed the issues, rather than focusing on the people and getting the issues out by quoting them. For example, "Gilbert Ryle calls Freud 'psychology's one man of genius' and the influence of his teaching 'deservedly profound' even though its allegories have been 'damagingly popular'..." First, Gilbert Ryle was not a scientist, but more importantly the sentence conveys no information. In addition, some of the key points are buried. Gellner's criticism is key – that psychoanalysis is not falsifiable – but is barely alluded to. And citing what people thought of Freud in 1977 isn't appropriate for an article in 2012. What is the current scientific perception of Freud, what are the key criticisms, and who is making them?

I hope this helps a little. I should add that I know it's a lot easier to criticize that it is to write! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you find this discussion to be too much to read, I don't blame you. I can barely stand to read it myself, though I haven't given up quite yet. It does help to say which version of the science section you prefer, however, and thanks for doing so. I'll note that although I am personally responsible for most of the "legacy" section of this article (with Esterson and Almanacer being responsible for most of what remains), I do think it is too long, and wouldn't at all be opposed to seeing it carefully cut back and compressed. That is, of course, the kind of thing that needs to be done delicately and carefully, and demands knowledge of the subject, so it's tricky to manage. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This section of the talk page alone is apparently 18,000 words. :) It means that the chances of uninvolved editors wanting to help are minimal, so the three of you are probably going to have to sort it out by yourselves. If you can isolate a key question, you could open an RfC, but that won't help with the general problems of the legacy section. You're right that it takes a huge amount of reading the sources to do this properly; this is why people are hesitant to get stuck in.

I would say the best way to proceed is to draw up a short list of the key sources (the sources that no self-respecting bio of Freud could be without), then try to stick to them. Once you have that draft up and running, then fill it in with opinions from elsewhere. But proceed based on the issues, rather than simply listing what people have said, because then you end up with a quote farm that leaves the reader wondering what the substance of the points was. And do Fisher and Greenberg need that much space?

Again, I know it's incredibly easy to say this, and incredibly hard to fix it, so I'm offering these comments in the spirit of very respectful criticism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with you regarding Ryle - that part isn't crucial. It could perhaps be removed altogether, or at least cut back (I'll do the latter in a moment). I'm less sure I agree about Fisher and Greenberg - they are very well known researchers, and their 1977 study is a well known and widely quoted one. There would be no difficulty with replacing the discussion of it with a more up to date evaluation of Freud that had the same academic stature, but I'm not sure what that might be. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire discussion (for obvious reason), but basically as I commented at the DRN here Wikipedia:DRN#Sigmund_Freud. If there is issues with WP:FRINGE material, there is the dedicated noticeboard WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec to PoC) I'm not suggesting you remove it. It's just that it's a bit long, and it's not entirely clear what they're saying (e.g. "some of his views about the psychodynamics of women" were "not supported." No idea what either the first or the second part means), so it's a lot of words for little return. And calling the dream theory "dangerously inaccurate," and "what is true was not new, and what was new was not true," -- again, what was the substance?

The key criticism is that none of it is falsifiable, so I would start with that, and really draw that out. Who argued it, what was their argument? (not quoting them, just relaying the substance). All else follows from that point -- if it's correct, psychoanalysis can't be a science; if it's false, who argued against it, and which parts of it are indeed falsifiable? That's how I would approach that section. Can it be tested, can it be wrong, or it is a closed system that simply adapts to accommodate any objection? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the discussion of Fisher/Greenberg is indeed long, but not without reason - they're very frequently cited researchers, and their views can be considered representative of modern scientific re-evaluations of Freud, so it surely makes some sense to mention them in some detail. I agree that the material could and should be made clearer than it is, but surely not removed. Other things - like Ryle and Stafford-Clark's views - are totally peripheral by comparison, and although I'm not rushing to remove them, probably could be removed without worsening the article. To IRWolfie: WP:FRINGE is not really the issue here, at least not in my opinion. Rather, it's a WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE issue. Too much material has been added to the legacy section, most especially to the science section, and the challenge is to find a way of cutting it back properly, while preserving the most important parts. I'm still thinking about how to do this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with almost all that SlimVirgin and Polisher of Cobwebs have written. Just two points in regard to PoC's comments. In relation to the Legacy section PoC says he is responsible for most of it. Surely not, there must have been other substantial contributors for the section to have got out of hand in the way it has. PoC adds: "with Esterson and Almanacer being responsible for most of what remains". As far as I can see, the only contributions I have made to the massive Legacy section are two sentences in the Science section, and my proposed referencing of three pro-Freud authors that Almanacer has tacked on to his Levy paragraph in the same section. I don't know what Almanacer has posted, but I doubt it is any more substantial than mine.

On Fisher and Greenberg, as PoC writes their 1977 study is a well known and widely quoted one. But I don't think the suggestion for replacing it with a comparable "more up to date evaluation of Freud" is appropriate. Firstly, the volume is not an evaluation of Freud, but an extensive evaluation of experimental testing of Freud's theories, and to my knowledge only Kline 1981 has also undertaken anything on this scale. Secondly, as the citation on the Freud page indicates, Fisher and Greenberg published a subsidiary volume in 1996, which includes summaries of their 1977 results and adds detailed accounts of post-1977 experimental studies.Esterson (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: As you say, this section is too much to read, but it is not necessary to do so. All you need to know is that the central issue is Amanacer's highlighting of the very limited number of citations of Freud supporters in the Science section. (I have given an explanation for this on the dispute page.[2]) The issue is now nothing more than the one you centred on: a choice between these [3] two versions. (Almanacer's later posting tacked on my three sentences citing pro-Freud authors in addition to Levy to his disproportionate five sentence paraphrasing of Levy.) Esterson (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have edited English Wikipedia's Sigmund Freud article a larger number of times than any other person in the world. Though my edits have affected all parts of it, most of my efforts have been concentrated on the legacy section, which indeed is primarily my work. The psychotherapy section is almost entirely composed of material that I added, and what little was not added by me (the material on Watters and Offshe, which was added by SusanLesch), I rewrote. The science section is largely the result of edits by myself, Esterson, Almanacer, and Hypoplectrus. Only the last paragraph of it, dealing with the views of neuro-scientists, predates those additions, and it too has been rewritten. I am responsible for essentially every word of the philosophy section, either because the material was added by me or because I rewrote what was already there (mainly the former). The literary criticism and the feminism sections are also mainly composed of material added by me, with only small additions from other editors. None of this is of relevance to the content issues under debate, but for the record those are the facts. My being largely responsible for the legacy section does not mean that I hold a high view of it - I am, on the contrary, quite dissatisfied with it, and believe it should be cut back. I will soon make proposals as to which material should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Esterson (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest we have a completely separate section for discussing overhauling the Legacy section, otherwise we'll lose sight of the present issue of which paragraph should be on the Freud page, Almanacer's paragraph that he has posted, or the one favoured by PoC and me. Esterson (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Esterton claims to have provided a “compromise” text “paraphrasing Levy's support for the scientific credentials of Freud's interpretative procedures” As is evident it is not a paraphrase of anything. It’s a statement that Levy makes a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a quotation. I have restored part of my summary of Levy’s argument following PoC’s recent revertion but in a reworded form. Please note that the Levy content is/was ALREADY a compromise between my original version the more recent ones, made in response to Esterton’s comments. I have taken on board Slim Virgin’s point on the Dispute Board that direct quotations are largely undesirable and removed them. I agree a new section Legacy is desirable. Almanacer (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Almancer's quibble about my using the word "paraphrase" is a red herring. All that matters is than my three line sentence referenced Levy's making a case for Freud’s scientific credentials followed by a relevant quotation. His assertion that his Levy content was already a compromise is disingenuous. What he did was make small amendments while retaining five sentences devoted to the views of a minor contributor to Freud studies, and while ignoring the two central objections that I repeatedly spelled out. At long last he has made a genuine concession by reducing the five Levy sentences to two. That means that we have a choice between these two paragraphs: [4]

The reason for arguing mine is preferable is twofold. I see no reason why a minor contributor to Freud studies should warrant two sentences when there is no other instance of an author's views on Freud being given more than one sentence. More importantly, I object to his alluding specifically to Levy's criticisms of a Cioffi book chapter (1970) that is nowhere mentioned on the Freud page. To allow the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited opens the way for editors to reference any author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud, a precedent that could extend an already overfull Freud page almost ad infinitum. For the latter reason, I would just as strongly object if an editor referenced Cioffi's critical essay on Wollheim's Freud. Esterson (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In case Almanacer again cites the several sentences given to Fisher and Greenberg, I have already pointed out that these do not give their views on Freud, but are summaries of the conclusions from experimental studies. Esterson (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Astonishingly, after pages and pages of complaints about Levy and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, what Esterton now proposes posting is a quotation from Levy that is the longest of any other in the entire Science section. As has been pointed out by SlimVirgin, large quotations are no substitute for good paraphrasing. I note that Esterton thinks it’s a red herring to point out he failed to provide one as claimed. Well, I think that paraphrasing is in important attribute of Wiki edits so when a claim is made to have provided one and it turns out to be nothing of the sort it should alert us to problems in the editorial interventions and other claims made by the editor concerned.

With regard to the alternative texts, what is absent in Esterton’s contribution is any reference to Levy’s central point that (in his view) it is clinical casework material that provides evidence by which Freud’s theories can be tested. That is clear from my summary but nowhere to found in his contribution. “Making sense of psychoanalytic interpretation,” which is what the quote is about, is not the same as making the case for the evidential status of Freud’s theories.

In his complaint about two sentences rather than one on Levy, Esterton, not for the first time, is missing the point. It’s not about Levy’s allegedly “minor” status in the academic pecking order, it’s about the standpoint he represents in the debate and the need to have a page that “fairly represents all significant viewpoints”, to quote the guidelines, where the overwhelming majority of the text is Freud criticism. With regard to Fisher and Greenberg what else is “finding support for” supposed to amount to other than expressing a view on the validity of Freudian theories?

In objecting to the inclusion of Levy’s criticism of Popper and Cioffi, Esterton has invented a protocol he wants to enforce on other editors which has no basis in any WP guidelines viz the prohibition of “the referencing of one author's views of another author's publication that has not been previously cited”. I believe this would unnecessarily and undesirably exclude instances of any author who presented a case by critical exposition of another author. This is the case with Levy who chooses to make his case by “exposing various errors in interpreting Freud ” and whose comment on Cioffi is applicable beyond the content of the 1970 paper. WP guidelines applied on a case-by-case basis is what matters in the management of inappropriate content and we don’t need Esterton’s proposed supplement to them (he could try adding it in the appropriate forum if he wishes). I’d be perfectly happy to have a sentence or two on Cioffi’s view of Wollheim provided it was relevant to the science debate. Almanacer (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My complaint about undue weight was about a disproportionate five sentences allotted to Levy. My proposed quotation was long because I was bending over backwards to accommodate Levy's views! Anyway, as I posted on the Dispute page, I am happy to have my Levy sentence replaced by your first sentence, so that gets that out of the way.

I don't object to a mention of criticism of Popper, because Popper's famous "irrefutability" contention is cited at the beginning of the Grunbaum paragraph, though I suggest the appropriate place for it is together with the referencing of Levy's views on Grunbaum in that paragraph.

I'm surprised that Almanacer thinks providing a purportedly objective summary of experimental results is the same as expressing a personal view.

For the rest, I am reposting what I posted on the Dispute page:

Almanacer says his addition of two Levy sentences is about the need for fair representation of all significant viewpoints. But it was I who added three other pro-Freud viewpoints on the scientific credentials of Freudian theories. And does Almanacer really think that the numerous briefer references to other authors' views in the Science section are sufficient to fairly represent their viewpoints'? Why should Levy be an exception to the limitations inherent for a topic on which so much has been written? On the explicit mentioning of Cioffi (whose article being criticised he has not even cited, and indeed has not read), Almanacer has made clear he favours an open house policy of unlimited citing of one author's criticisms of another author's views on Freud in the appropriate context. In that case, I can add another paragraph starting with a referencing of Erwin's article rebutting Levy's case against Grunbaum. Then, as the Cioffi 1970 essay is criticised, it would be legitimate for me to reference, contra Levy, Sulloway's favourable view of Cioffi's "spurious allusions" critique that Almanacer mentions, together with similar favourable views from Erwin and Webster of precisely this same critique by Cioffi. In other words we can have one editor vying with another to post their favoured author's views on another author's views on Freud. That way lies the potential for almost unlimited extension of the Freud page.

In my proposed paragraph (now with the first sentence replaced by Almancer's first sentence), I have also included the views of three other pro-Freud authors' views on the scientific credentials of Freud's theories (views which, of course, Almanacer has included in his paragraph). It seems to me that this is not just a compromise on my part, I have gone as far as I could reasonably have gone to accommodate Almanacer's original concerns about insufficient pro-Freud citations in the Science section. Esterson (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated on the Dispute page,[5] I have moved Levy's criticism of Popper to the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph where it is more appropriately placed, together with the Levy criticism of Grunbaum that Almanacer previously posted there. Levy's criticism of Popper is thus retained. I have also deleted the second Levy sentence from the following paragraph, for reasons given there (and above). The choice is now between the following versions (see highlighting in the Popper/Grunbaum paragraph and in the following paragraph).[6] I suggest further discussion of my latest attempt to resolve this dispute should take place on the Dispute page. Esterson (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to acknowledge Almanacer's acceptance of my compromise solution on the Dispute page. Esterson (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that this dispute is resolved, could we have the whole of this "Science" section on the Talk page archived to get it out of the way? I don't know how to do this. Esterson (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it archiving is done automatically after a period of inactivity in the section concerned.  This should remain the case. We have just resolved a lenghty dispue over the issue of "fair representation"  in the Science section and any further editorial changes should build on this rather than start it all over again as PoC seems about to do (see Legacy section).  His or any other proposed changes to it should remain topics for the science section and be posted here. I'm sure there will be comments on  future edits I will be making shortly. Almanacer (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How can a sensible discussion of changes to the Legacy section be based on the few relevant items in the great mass of material in the Talk page Science section? What is needed is a separate section as provided by PoC for discussion of substantive changes. (My recollection of the Dispute page discussion was that there were some editors who voiced agreement with PoC's suggestion for a major overhaul, and no voices against.) PoC has posted a draft Legacy section. You have every opportunity to express your views (including objections to passages omitted) in the new section, preferably with a new sub-heading so that discussion of your views can be maintained in one limited space. Esterson (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I’m not proposing contribute to the discussion/editing/changing of the content of any other section than the science section at the moment I intend to continue using the science section of the Talk Page. This also applies to responding to any further reverting of content I have already provided, including passages recently in dispute and currently appearing in an agreed compromise form. I’ll be doing so with reference to arguments already set out in that forum and which other editors may wish to consult, including passages recently in dispute and currently appearing in an agreed compromise form. Almanacer (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The following has been posted in the Legacy Section:

The Science sub-section contains significant amounts of material that could be removed without significant loss to the article as a whole. It starts by mentioning Gilbert Ryle and David Stafford-Clark's views, but neither are of great consequence for Freud's image or scientific reputation, and I wouldn't object if anyone wished to remove them altogether. The material on Fisher and Greenberg is much more significant, and I don't believe it ought to be removed. The second paragraph of the Science sub-section, dealing with the views of various critics of Freud, could be cut back somewhat, but doesn't need drastic cuts (of the two quotes from Hans Eysenck, I'd be in favor of keeping only the first). The third paragraph of the Science sub-section is probably the most problematic. It begins by noting that, "Adolf Grünbaum has rejected Popper's critique of Freud, and argued that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." That places the emphasis more on Grünbaum's view of Popper than on Grünbaum's view of Freud; it should be the other way around, as the article is about Freud. It would be better to have something like, "Adolf Grünbaum has maintained, in opposition to Popper, that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." The example used to illustrate Grünbaum's point - the alleged connection between paranoia and repressed homosexuality - is unnecessary and could be removed. It would be better for the article on Grünbaum, which at present contains very little useful information. I think the same could be said of most of the paragraph dealing with Grünbaum, including everything about Levy, Gellner, Cioffi, and Esterson. The fourth paragraph of the Science sub-section doesn't seem altogether appropriate to this article - much of the material there would be better for the Karl Popper article, since its essentially criticism of Popper. Perhaps only the material on Fromm's views would belong here, although even that I don't see as crucial. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the Science sub-section seem acceptable as they stand. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at PoC’ proposals here I think he needs to revisit some of the comments made above which indicate not a need to cut back content per se but to cut back certain kinds of content viz. quotes, author citing and to replace it with appropriately referenced paraphrasing, summaries and introductory material (points made by SlimVirgin). As to his absurd claim that a paragraph which includes a defence of Freud’s scientific credibility is inappropriate content for the Science page of the Freud article (and is best placed on the Popper article page?!) – this demonstrates clearly why his editorial judgement was called into question in the first place and the POV notice posted. Almanacer (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are completely unreasonable. The legacy section is obviously too long, and it needs to be cut back, in accord with WP:DUE. I intend to do exactly that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Almanacer that if the paragraph referencing authors who argue that psychoanalysis is not scientific, or is a pseudo-science, is kept, then so should the paragraph referencing authors who argue for its scientific credentials. Esterson (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer is unfortunately failing to understand the principle of due weight. Obviously the science section should include the views of both supporters and critics of Freud's scientific credibility. The issue is how much material, exactly, should be included. The literature defending and criticizing Freud is vast, and there has to be a limit somewhere. It remains my view that the paragraph beginning, "In his wider consideration of and response to critics of Freud’s scientific credibility Levy ..." and the preceding paragraph are excessive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk), 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A full discussion of the said latter paragraph has recently taken place at great length ( see above ) to which PoC made no contribution other than to revert it. Bizzarely he actually approved a replacement paragraph containing the longest quote - by Levy - of any on the entire page. His proposal to revert again shows his ongoing contempt for the efforts made on both side to reach a compromise. This kind of attritional edit warring is a huge disincentive to new editorial contributions. I’m beginning to wonder if that’s why he’s doing it.

We are told by PoC, that this is “too long”, this or that is “inappropriate” or “unnecessary” or “excessive” and he then proceeds to revert sourced text on the basis of these subjective but unargued POVs. Supposedly in favour of reducing content, he ignores sympathetic advice eg from SlimVirgin who questions the length of a paragraph which he largely wrote on Fisher Greenberg and ploughs on hacking away at text others have contributed in seeking to establish a fair representation of appropriate content. As I have pointed out, PoC’s objectivity and editorial judgement has been called into question already and is at the root of the problems with this and the other Legacy sections which he has largely written. Until he starts taking sensible advice such as that offer by SlimVirgin his judgement will remain in question, including and especially with regard to undue weight his advice on which I do not need. Almanacer (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a reasonable trade-off, dropping Ryle and Stafford-Clarke for Kerr and Stevens and begining the section with:

Freud’s rigorous scientific training in neurophysiology led in, 1891, to the publication of his first book, On Aphasia: A Critical Study, which remains to this day, a reference point for research on the disorder. (The reference is Kerr, John (2012) A Dangerous Method London: Atlantic Books 2012 p. 36)

Notwithstanding an extensive body of literature challenging the scientific status of Freud’s later work, numerous research projects designed to empirically test psychoanalytic ideas have been published. With reference to his own extensive survey of that literature, Stevens observes “all in all, the results have been reasonably consistent with what the theory might predict”. The reference is (Stevens, R. Freud and Psychoanalysis Milton Keynes: Open University Press 1985 pp. 91-113). Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg concluded in 1977..... Almanacer (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, I simply don't follow your comments about past discussions. I am aware that the science section has been discussed, and that I participated in that discussion, but none of what I recall seems to coincide with your comments. I am not proposing to "revert" anything at this time, rather, I have made suggestions that you or any other editor are free to agree or disagree with. Those suggestions are not some final "bottom line" on my part; they are a draft that can be revised once, twice, or many times. It's not my wish to treat other editors with contempt. Your comment that that, "This attritional edit warring is a huge disincentive to new editorial contributions. I’m beginning to wonder if that’s why he’s doing it", perhaps shows that you need to review Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Turning to article content issues, I can only repeat that the science section is indeed too long in my opinion. Your complaint that my opinion is "subjective but unargued POV" again shows a failure to appreciate WP:DUE, which is what I have based my opinion upon. Simply put, there has to be a limit to the amount of material that any article can or should include, a principle I assume you would agree with. I simply disagree with you where exactly where the limit should be.

SlimVirgin may have disagreed with me about the Fisher and Greenberg paragraph, but she is one editor among many others and has no more right to dictate to the larger Wikipedia community than anyone else. Esterson, a Freud scholar, agreed with me that mentioning Fisher and Greenberg's views was appropriate. If you want to remove the Ryle and Stafford-Clark material, that's fine. I do not agree, however, that the science section should begin with, "Freud’s rigorous scientific training in neurophysiology led in, 1891, to the publication of his first book, On Aphasia: A Critical Study, which remains to this day, a reference point for research on the disorder." That appears to be material that would be more appropriate for the section of the article on Freud's life. I also question the other material you wish to add to the start of the science section, as it seems more like an attempt to defend psychoanalysis than a neutral account of the issue. I would like to see Esterson's comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Ryle and Stafford-Clarke citations should be dropped because they are not specifically about the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. Nor is the proposed paragraph on Freud's early laboratory work on aphasia (already briefly alluded to on the Freud page) appropriate, firstly because it is obviously Freud's psychoanalytic theories that are at issue in this section. Almanacer no doubt included it to boost Freud's scientific credentials, but numerous writers have pointed out that when he developed his psychoanalytic theories he ceased to maintain these standards, e.g., Clark Glymour, "How Freud Left Science" [post-1897], in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, eds. Cohen and Lauden, 1983.

On the Stevens quotation: It is important to be aware that "consistent with" is by no means the same as corroborate or confirm, as is clear from Stevens' own reservations that follow the sentence quoted by Almanacer above: "In comparison with the natural sciences, we are left with little sense of defined progress. Several studies have failed to replicate the findings of others." Again: "True – there is evidence which is often consistent or suggestive but hardly, if ever, does it provide a definitive basis for rejecting or supporting specific ideas." Stevens also notes that (as Cioffi also pointed out in his review of Fisher and Greenberg 1977), "A key problem with psychoanalysis is that its concepts are very often not grounded in observables but are defined in terms of other hypothetical concepts proposed by the theory." (Many of the studies presume psychoanalytic precepts in the course of purportedly corroborating the theory under test – Erwin points out, for example, the over reliance on unvalidated projective tests, such as the Rorschach test.)

Almanacer rightly describes the Stevens chapter as his extensive survey of the literature. Fisher and Greenberg 1977 figures prominently, but there is no mention of the fact that, as Kline (1981) pointed out, these authors report results completely uncritically with almost no consideration of methodological inadequacy. From the way he describes his survey, it seems evident that Stevens has for the most part taken claims from the studies at face value. Nowhere is there any indication that he has made any attempt to closely examine individual studies for their methodological weaknesses. Edward Erwin has undertaken to do this, and arrives at rather different conclusions. After an extensive survey of the studies themselves taken topic by topic (not a survey of claimed results) he writes: "No distinctly Freudian theoretical hypothesis receives strong support from the pre-1980 experimental literature." After a second chapter examining post-1980 experimental studies, Erwin concludes: "The experimental research surveyed in this chapter [5] and in Chapter 4 have yielded very little support, if any, for Freudian theory." (E. Erwin, A Final Accounting: Philosophical and Empirical Issues in Freudian Psychology, MIT, 1996, pp. 146-236.)

As I have pointed out, there is such controversy on almost all aspects of Freud's work that it is possible to cite both pro and contra statements in the literature on almost all topics, making for considerable difficulties in producing a "balanced" Freud page. That is why, in general terms, I support PoC's attempt to prune the Science section in particular, and the Freud page as a whole. More specifically, I pointed out (both above and on the Dispute page) that one should not expect "balanced" representation in the Science section. See my posting above, including reference to pro-Freudians, e.g., Habermas, Breger, George Klein, Spence, etc, who do not regard psychoanalysis as a science. Esterson (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC - Whether you call them suggestions or proposals (I fail to see the distinction) they remain further examples of your lack of objectivity and poor judgement. When you get round to presenting an argument with regard to WP:DUE or any other basis I’ll deal with them but you’ll have to come up with a lot better than “it doesn’t seem appropriate” or the section is “too long”. You’ll also have to do better than Esterton’s non-sequitor that because its difficult to arrive at an appropriate balancing of content it’s necessary to “prune” the section. No it isn’t, it’s in proportion to other sections eg Psychotherapy (slightly shorter) or Philosophy (slightly longer). And do try not to insult other editors – especially one’s whose advice you’ve solicited - SlimVirgin wasn’t trying to dictate, as you put it, to anybody. She was giving her opinion as an experienced editor and I regret both that you choose to ignore it and characterise it in such a way. Almanacer (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer writes:

You’ll also have to do better than Esterton’s non-sequitor that because its difficult to arrive at an appropriate balancing of content it’s necessary to “prune” the section.

It is not a non sequitur because the point was made in the context of PoC's and my view that the Freud page is too extensive. I pointed out that for almost every contention made about Freud's work, an opposite contention can be posted. To some extent this is an appropriate feature of the Freud page, but should be kept in check, because if there is too much point/counterpoint the Freud page increases in size almost indefinitely. This is illustrated by your determined attempt to add five sentences devoted to a single author's view, only relinquished by you after I took it to a Dispute page where you received not a single editor's support. It is illustrated again by your current proposal to add more sentences at the beginning of the Science section, when the sentences devoted to the Fisher and Greenberg summary of claimed results of experimental testing of Freudian theories suffices to make the relevant point.

To further exemplify my point, there is nothing on the Freud page about the historically important fact that the Nazis described Freudian psychoanalysis as "Jewish" to denigrate it in comparison with what they called "Aryan psychology". This is not insignificant in psychoanalytic history, as such a view was endorsed by no less a figure than Jung. Why should I not add this to your posting that Freud's Jewishness had a substantial effect on the content of psychoanalytic ideas (which, incidentally, you state as a fact when it is actually only an opinion)?

That the Freud page is already too long is indicated by comparison with a comparable figure. Whereas the Einstein page has around 8000 words, the Freud page has about 13,000. One might find arguments to justify the Freud page being longer, but I don't believe it should be over 60% longer. Esterson (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A postscript to my showing that Almanacer's quoting of a sentence from Stevens 1985 was not a fair representation of his view. In the 2008 revised edition of his book Stevens has had the opportunity to read what he calls "the spate of books" that appeared in the 1990s. Of Malcolm Macmillan's [1991] "close and encyclopaedic evaluation of Freud's work", he writes that it "made very clear the lack of support for and invalidity of fundamental tenets of Freudian theory". A little later he writes that "these devastating critiques emphasize the position we established earlier in Chapter 10 – that psychoanalysis cannot be regarded as orthodox science". (Stevens 2008, pp. 153-158.) Perhaps Almanacer will now have second thoughts on citing Stevens supposedly supporting the validation of psychoanalytic theories. Esterson (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, perhaps you'd like again to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? I'm sorry to have to keep repeating this, but your comments have become so persistently hostile that it seems necessary. You say I should produce "arguments". Actually, talk pages aren't for presenting or engaging in "arguments", so I don't apologize for not doing so. I could offer reasons for removing certain material, but you seem so totally dismissive of everything I have to say I'm not sure it would serve any purpose. Oh, and regarding SlimVirgin, I wasn't trying to imply that she was trying to "dictate" to anyone. It was simply that you seemed to think that because she had expressed a particular view, other editors had to automatically agree with it, and you should know very well that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. SlimVirgin definitely is an experienced editor, but she isn't a Freud expert, as some of her edits (eg, those labelling Freud a psychiatrist) have demonstrated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I've no idea why you think you should be exempt from supporting your suggestions with appropriate arguments (qv Esterton at great length), as every one else has to do, or that the Talk page isn't the place to do so.

Esterton - the objective should be to improve the article. In some cases this might involve shortening content, in some cases adding to it. This needs addressing case by case, and was how other sections of the article which I have been involved in editing have been improved. If you want to debate further you need to start a new Talk Page Section on the topic. This forum is for discussion of the Science section.

I’m happy to stand down the Stevens content in the light of his later remarks of which I was not aware. But what Stevens and for that matter Erwin demonstrate is that testability per se is not a disputed issue in an important area of Freud studies. Stevens reference to thousands of research papers on the topic is valid secondary source evidence for the widespread viewpoint in the academic community that, contra Popper, Freud’s theories are scientifically testable, validated or not. It therefore constitutes a significant viewpoint that requires fair representation which is all I have been arguing for.

Add what you think appropriate re “Jewish science” but it wouldn’t belong in the Early Career section which covers early influences. I was thinking of adding reference to it in an extension of part of the Early Psychoanalytic Movement section. (The attribution re influence on Freud’s theories is clearly referenced – we don’t need to start every sentence with “In the opinion of….). I’ll include the content on aphasia elsewhere. Almanacer (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The material on Ryle and Stafford-Clark should be removed from the science section because it is simply praise for Freud and expresses nothing of substance about the scientific merits of psychoanalysis. Nearly all of the material on Grunbaum, save perhaps a single sentence, should be removed because it is about Grunbaum and more appropriate to the Grunbaum page. The material on Levy, which you seem so attached to, should be removed because it too is fundamentally in response to Grunbaum. The material on Westen should go because it says nothing except, essentially, that one person decided that Freud's scientific legacy is important. The Fromm material should go because it too says nothing except essentially that one person (a different person) also decided that Freud's scientific method is valid. Note that these aren't "arguments". I am simply pointing out what is obviously wrong with that material and why it needs to be removed. That you can't/won't see the problems with that material, and are apparently intent on obstructing efforts to remove it or relocate it to more suitable articles, is unfortunate, but of course there's nothing I can do about it. There are better uses for my time than to bicker with you, and there are other things I can do on Wikipedia than edit the Freud page. Remember, though, that if you insist on obstructing other editor's attempts to improve the science section, it's not likely that you are going to be able to make your preferred changes to it either. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer: Leaving aside your evading that your Stevens quotation was not a fair reflection of his view at the time in the light of the strong reservations that followed, the several lines devoted to Fisher and Greenberg suffice to show that there have been attempts to validate Freudian theories experimentally. Why is anything more required? As far as "fair representation" is required, I have explained why one would expect considerably more "anti-Freud" authors to have published on the subject of the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis than "pro-Freud" authors, including that many authors favourable to psychoanalysis do not regard it as a matter of great concern, and that several major figures strongly favourable towards psychoanalysis do not believe that it is a scientific discipline.

Your writing that the aim should be "to improve" the article begs the question of what constitutes an improvement, though it is evident that your position is that anything goes as long as it is appropriately referenced. PoC and I take the position that the Freud page is already overlong – consider my comparison with the article on Einstein, who had an extensive involvement with public affairs in addition to his scientific work. By advocating that I add the items I mentioned you miss the point I was making, namely that if several editors took your view the Freud page could increase indefinitely, because there is no limit to the citations one could add on both sides of every topic.

No, one doesn't need to start with "In the opinion of…", rather with something like "X argues that…". I have checked out relevant citations on the Freud page and they all present the material as views of the author, not statements of fact. Only you, apparently, should be exempt from this sensible practice. Esterson (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is evident that this difference of viewpoint – Almanacer wanting to add yet more material to the Freud page, and PoC and I taking the view that the page is already too extensive and that a single editor's determination to add material conducive to his own strongly-held views can only exacerbate this – is not going to be resolved here. I propose that this be taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard.[7] Esterson (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC: what is obvious to you is not necessarily so to me or other editors. And vice versa – eg it appears obvious to me that since Freud’s aphasia book is still regarded a a valuable text by today’s researchers (according to Kerr’s book – as referenced) it was appropriate to have this mentioned as part of Freud’s scientific legacy. You and Esterton say not – for what reason I’m not clear.

There are lots of other things I think are obviously wrong with the article but I doubt you or Esterton would agree with me. To give some examples, neither Crews nor Webster are/were scientists or philosophers of science (the former an English professor, the latter a Suffolk bookseller with no academic status). Both should be removed IMO to other sections. Moreover, the Wesbster/Medawar passage is a misrepresentation of the source material ("The opinion is gaining ground" is the missing qualification - and it needs sourcing directly to Medawar). Ryle has also recently been crudely misrepresented in a passage now thankfully removed. I suspect the waffle on Hobson is dubious too but have yet to check this out thoroughly. And whilst on the subject, Eysenck needs a page referenced (both here and re. the Minna Bernays allegation). Whoever is responsible for that particular paragraph (beginning with a quote dredged up from 97 years ago) discredits Wikipedia, not Freud, though that was clearly the intention.

But, as I’ve said before, we all have to live with content we are unhappy with but (assuming the references are fixed/amended in the above cases) is valid according to WP guidelines. The Grunbaum and Levy paragraphs are of a much higher standard than the above; to keep the latter and remove the former would seriously detract from the quality and relevance of the section, in my view. Esterton has pointed how central Grunbaum’s work is to the debate on Freud’s. I’m not bothered about keeping the Hartmann (more waffle) and Fromm (insubstantial). Likewise Ryle and Stafford-Clarke in their present form though in these cases the comments could be made more pertinent to the issues.

Esteron: re improving the content see my response to PoC above. Not “anything goes”, far from it. Perhaps you could help with the referencing and while you’re at it check out the Kline page reference which in the edition I consulted brings up the Contents page.

I’m surprised you overlooked this passage in your review of citations, especially since it cites you own blog contribution as the “reliable source”: “However, Solms's case frequently depends on the notion of neuro-scientific findings being "broadly consistent" with Freudian theories, rather than strict validations of those theories”. The absence of strict validation, by the way, is not in the least unusual in scientific work.

I’m not aware of any relevant WP guidelines pertaining to the length of articles so I fail to see how the Dispute procedure can help. The proliferation of pro-anti exchanges would be curbed if, as I and others have suggested, a Freud Criticism section was created. Almanacer (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but I really must go through Almanacer's latest contribution point by point (illustrating why the difference of opinion between PoC/Esterson and Almanacer needs to go to arbitration).

Almanacer writes: "since Freud’s aphasia book is still regarded a valuable text… it was appropriate to have this mentioned as part of Freud’s scientific legacy. You and Esterton say not – for what reason I’m not clear."

I made very clear why I thought the passage in question was inappropriate. First it is evident that you added it to boost Freud's scientific credentials, though all the material that follows in that section is to do with the scientific status of psychoanalysis. Second, if you add that passage, I can add citations that state that as soon as Freud started to develop psychoanalysis post-1897, in the words of Glymour, "Freud left science". This illustrates my point that to keep adding material in the way you have argued for only invites counterpoint citations, leading to an indefinite extension of the Freud page. Since these effectively cancel each other out, the best policy is not to add such material to an already massive Freud page.

On Crews and Webster: The notion that one has to be a scientist or philosopher of science to make pertinent assessments of the scientific status of psychoanalysis is fallacious. What matters is that both these authors have/had an extensive knowledge of Freud's writings in general, and, most important, of his clinical methodology in particular. Understanding the latter does not require any academic credentials in science.

You are right about the Medawar quotation, and I have amended it accordingly.

Almanacer writes: "while you’re at it check out the Kline page reference which in the edition I consulted brings up the Contents page..."

I suggest you consult the Preface to the Second Edition (1981) as referenced on the Freud page. (I have amended a slight error in the quotation from Kline.)

Almanacer: "Esterton has pointed how central Grunbaum’s work is to the debate on Freud’s [?]."

I presume the omitted words are something like "scientific status". But as long as Grunbaum's contentions are referenced, there is no need for too much else to be added, because for every reference citation a counter-reference can be cited. These cancel each other out and for the most part may as well be omitted.

Almanacer: "But, as I’ve said before, we all have to live with content we are unhappy with but (assuming the references are fixed/amended in the above cases) is valid according to WP guidelines."

No one is disputing that, and I bent over backwards to accommodate your viewpoint on the Levy sentences issue, citing three pro-Freudians arguing for the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. The problem is that, while PoC and I do not give our views on specific items on the basis of whether we agree or disagree with the content, you appear to be currently engaged (judging by your very recent postings on the Freud page and current proposals, with evidently more to come) in a process of adding items solely conducive to your point of view.

Almanacer writes:

However, Solms's case frequently depends on the notion of neuro-scientific findings being "broadly consistent" with Freudian theories, rather than strict validations of those theories”. The absence of strict validation, by the way, is not in the least unusual in scientific work.

It is highly relevant to the kind of situation in which such "broadly consistent" claims are made in relation to Freudian theories. Consider, for instance, the citations for the end of the Solms sentence ("Researchers [in neuro-psychoanalysis]... have argued for Freud's theories, pointing out brain structures relating to Freudian concepts such as libido, drives, the unconscious and repression"). Citation 171 is to a study presenting experimental evidence (on the basis of "think – no think" experiments) for the occurrence of repression. Citation 172 presents evidence for brain structure correlates to repressive processes. But what has this got to do with Freudian notions of repression? The idea of repression predates Freud, e.g., Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (extensively) in intuitive terms, and in ideas "promulgated by Herbart seventy years previously [to Freud's]" (Jones I, Hogarth, pp. 407-410). (See also Rosemarie Sand, The Freud Encylopedia, Routledge 2002, pp. 254-256.) In the words of Richard McNally in relation to an earlier paper on "think – no think" experimental claims on repression, "even without all the other reservations (such as that the material suppressed was not distressing) the experiments say absolutely nothing about repression in the Freudian sense."

I have mentioned these items at some length to show I could add citations to some of the above authors, but I refrain from doing so because they only add to the point/counterpoint tendency to extend the Freud page indefinitely. Likewise, in response to the Kandel citation at the end of the same paragraph I could add his stating in the same referenced article: "Here we have… the neural basis for a set of unconscious mental processes. Yet this unconscious bears no resemblance to Freud's unconscious" (Am. J. Psychiatry, April 1998, p. 468).

From relevant responses by Almanacer above, his position is that he should continue to post fresh items conducive to his views, and that if I want to post referenced items expressing contrary views that's up to me. In other words, it may not be exactly "anything goes", but it does imply indulgence towards opening up the Freud page to indefinite extension by advocates of one view or another, a position with which PoC and I do not agree. Esterson (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson—you are arguing for the removal of sourced content. I think that good justification has to be provided for removing sourced content. You have argued that the article is too long. Perhaps there are other parts of the article that can be reduced. Almanacer is defending his material, and his material is reliably sourced. You say "for every reference citation a counter-reference can be cited". I don't think this is necessarily a reason for the removal of sourced material, unless of course citations and counter-citations are expressing nothing more than simple contradiction. The task at hand is presenting the arguments and counterarguments in a way that allows the reader to know how various people have grappled with this and related questions. This is a section of the article addressing a question concerning whether or not Freud's work was "scientific". Some prominent figures might have reached strong conclusions; others might have reached qualified conclusions. If Freud's work was not scientific, than what were its merits? Perhaps this section of the article needs to be expanded, and perhaps other sections can be reduced in size. Are there editors defending the content found in other sections of the article? Do you feel that every other part of the article is absolutely essential and indispensable? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop: You write: "you are arguing for the removal of sourced content… Almanacer is defending his material, and his material is reliably sourced."

I (and I believe, at least by implication, PoC) have pointed out that the fact that the items proposed by Almanacer are reliably sourced begs the question in relation to our concerns. By your argument Almanacer's five sentences devoted to the views of a single favoured author should have been allowed to stand. That is the logic of defending an editor's posting on the basis that it is reliably sourced. Of course, anyone will defend their material – though the several weeks of exchanges on this issue above illustrates how often Almanacer simply reiterated his view without addressing the specific objections I made. In spite of my accommodating his viewpoint by proposing three other references supporting the views of the author whose views he was citing, he remained intransigent in insisting on the inclusion of his five sentences. Only after I took the issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where Almanacer received the support of not a single editor, did he relinquish this demand. That is the context in which this dispute should be viewed, not some abstract notion that Almanacer is simply posting (or proposing) reliably sourced material. And, as with Almanacer, you are failing to address my point that if his precedent is followed, it opens the way to an equal number of contrary references, plus citations to views I have cited immediately above that I could also add to the Science section, thereby countenancing the virtual unlimited extension of the Freud page. That is why I shall be taking this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Esterson (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record I responded on two separate occasions to comments by Esterton with amended and reduced text re the passage in question without insisting on anything. Esterton’s response was to replace my entire text with a long and largely inappropriate quotation. We then agreed on a compromise in a spirit of collaborative editing which he has now, along with PoC, abandoned for the confrontational approach which I’m sure Bus Stop will recall led, in the exchanges with Hypoplectrus, to the Dispute Notice being flagged up. That is the context of the current dispute.

And yes, Esterton, I agree point-counterpoint is undesirable – so stop doing it, or threatening to do it; it’s clearly against WP guidelines qv WP:ATM, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. I’m not proposing to add counterpoints to Crews, Webster, Hobson etc. You’re the one who is driving that agenda at every conceivable opportunity (eg re. the Aphasia book, Jewish origins, Fisher and Greenberg, Solms, etc). I suggest the following advice is worth taking (from WP:ATM ) : “A good rule of thumb is, if a position is notable and reasonable enough to be represented in an article, it is notable and reasonable enough to be represented without being instantly however-ed. Encyclopedias should not read like compressed forum threads.”

The solution you avoid discussing is to have a Freud Criticism section. The solution you propose – to stop adding content - isn’t going to happen, nor should it as it is fundamentally in conflict with the aims of Wikipedia.

And why should the fact that most of the section is about psychoanalysis preclude the mention of Freud’s earlier work scientific work or initiate (by you) yet another undesirable Pro-Con thread exchange? It’s not as if plenty of Con material isn’t already in place. Perhaps you could manage an answer that doesn’t involve an ad hominem attack which we can all dish out – just replace “boost” with “denigrate” and apply it to the paragraph I’ve drawn your attention to. I’m glad to see you have set out to improve it. Hopefully further general improvements can be made with the approach Bus Stop suggests. Almanacer (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer writes:

"Just for the record I responded on two separate occasions to comments by Esterton with amended and reduced text re the passage in question without insisting on anything. Esterton’s response was to replace my entire text with a long and largely inappropriate quotation. We then agreed on a compromise in a spirit of collaborative editing which he has now, Just for the record I responded on two separate occasions to comments by Esterton with amended and reduced text re the passage in question without insisting on anything."

I have already rebutted this gross misrepresentation of the situation, and shall have to do so again. The two separate occasions to which Almanacer alludes involved minor changes that did not address either of the two principal objections I made. The "entire text" to which Almanacer refers was his five sentence passage devoted to the views of a single author (Levy), and the "long and largely inappropriate quotation" I replaced it with was an attempt to accommodate Almanacer's viewpoint by cramming in as much as I reasonably could of Levy's arguments. I was perfectly prepared to allow his own later single sentence to replace mine after he failed to get any support on the Dispute page for his five sentences. "Without insisting on anything", says Almanacer! It was only as a result of my taking the issue to the Dispute page after weeks of disputation and his obtaining no support from other editors that he eventually withdrew his five sentences and replaced it by one (with my proposed three sentences citing authors supporting his viewpoint making up the rest of the paragraph).

Almanacer writes: "And yes, Esterton, I agree point-counterpoint is undesirable – so stop doing it, or threatening to do it; it’s clearly against WP guidelines qv WP:ATM, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists."

There is nothing in either WP:ATM, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists to preclude legitimate citing of non-minority contrary views to a posted reference.

"so stop doing it, or threatening to do it"

In other words, Almanacer wants a free hand to continue to post items conducive to his own point of view without my citing references that demonstrate that there are contrary views to those he is so determined to add to the Freud page.

There is absolutely no point in continuing these exchanges on this Talk page. The only sensible procedure is to bring in other editors using the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and I intend to do so. Esterson (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Examination of Almanacer's second Levy sentence

Apologies for the length of what follows, but given Almanacer's continuing insistence on retaining the Levy sentences in their current form in spite of the objections of two other editors I think more substantive objections are warranted. The sentence reads:

In his wider consideration of and response to critics of Freud’s scientific credibility Levy argues for the importance of clinical case material and the concepts related to it, notably resistance and transference in establishing the evidentiary status of Freud's work.[Ref. Levy, Donald Freud Among the Philosophers, 1996, pp. 23-56.}

First it should be understood that "evidentiary status" is by no means the same thing as "scientific status". (One can consider the evidentiary status of contentions in various disciplines, e.g., history, without subscribing to scientific norms.) I have checked the cited pages (23-56) and there is nothing there about the scientific status of the notions Levy considers: throughout that chapter he is attempting to demonstrate the strong plausibility of findings obtained using Freud's psychoanalytic procedures. For this reason the sentence in question is inappropriate for the section headed "Science". (In fact I have had difficulty in finding any passages that argue explicitly for the scientific credentials of Freud's theories in Levy's book - but then it is an examination of philosophical views about these theories, not an assessment of their scientific credentials.)

I note that when Almanacer reinstated the Levy sentences on 13 November he justified their inclusion by writing "Quality not quantity is what matters." As far as I can see, he is satisfied to take Levy's book as an example of quality writing without having seen alternative arguments that possibly undercut Levy's position. I'll give two reasons here for questioning whether Levy's book actually lives up to Almanacer's billing. First, Edward Erwin (editor of The Freud Encyclopedia: Theory, Therapy and Culture, Routledge 2002) reviewed Levy's book in the philosophy journal Mind and concluded that on "Freud's particular theory of the unconscious, Levy does nothing to show that Freud was right. As for his attempt to rebut Grunbaum's critique of the Freudian clinical evidence, it is a total failure" (Mind, 112 (446), 2003, pp. 358-363). Now I'm not saying Erwin is right, or that I necessarily agree with all he writes in his review. I'm just pointing out that Alamancer's evident conviction of the importance of what Levy writes is not itself evidence that this is the case.

My main reason for the deletion of the second Levy sentence, with its insistence on the evidentiary importance of clinical case material, is as follows. Numerous people over the years (including some in the psychotherapeutic field) have questioned the reliability of such "data". (How many psychoanalysts nowadays find penis envy among their female patients, a 'finding' Freud insisted he invariably uncovered in women.) Checking Levy's book, I see he contends that "free association of the sort Freud practiced" implicitly included "the making and testing of hypotheses" (p. 131). What an extraordinary claim about someone who always 'validated' whatever theory he held at the time! (In any case, the notion that Freud actually practised what he preached about free association is easily dispelled by close reading of his case histories, e.g., those of Dora, Little Hans and Wolf Man. This is in addition to the problem of suggestion playing a role in patients' productions.) Elsewhere Levy describes case material obtained by Freud as "data", apparently oblivious to the degree that patients' supposed unconscious ideas were actually Freud's own analytic interpretations and "reconstructions". That doesn't even take into account the unreliability of Freud's published accounts. Following up the researches of others, Frank Sulloway has taken each case history in turn and has shown how unreliable they are ("Reassessing Freud's Case Histories", 1992). And in the one case for which Freud didn't destroy his case notes, in his book on the Rat Man Patrick Mahony (himself a Freudian) demonstrated what he later described as "Freud's intentional confabulation and… the serious discrepancies between Freud's day-to-day notes of the treatment and his published case history of it" (American Journal of Psychiatry, August 1990). Yet Levy argues for the importance of clinical case material in the context of establishing the evidentiary status of psychoanalysis specifically in relation to Freud! I'm left wondering if Levy had actually read the critical literature on Freud's clinical claims that exposed the unreliability of the latter's clinical 'data' prior to his publishing his book. Summing up, the elements to which Levy appeals in the sentence quoted by Almanacer are related to humanistic plausibility rather than to scientific norms. Moreover, Levy's contentions about these elements do not withstand exposures, in numerous articles and books, of the dubiousness of much of Freud's clinical case material on which Levy places so much emphasis. For these reasons there is no justification for the inclusion of Almanacer's second sentence in the Science section. Esterson (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

I requested that the article be protected temporarily from editing, and the request has been granted. Hopefully, this will give us some time to see where consensus lies, regarding the Levy material and other matters. I'd like to note also that I think this edit, although well-intentioned, was unhelpful and should be reverted, when protection expires. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to an objection to a change I made to the article "Sigmund Freud"

Polisher of Cobwebs objected to a change I made to the "Sigmund Freud" article. The original sentence was:

"Freud postulated the existence of libido (an energy with which mental process and structures are invested), developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association (in which patients report their thoughts without reservation and in whichever order they spontaneously occur), discovered transference (the process by which patients displace on to their analysts feelings based on their experience of earlier figures in their lives) and established its central role in the analytic process, and proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer."

It does not seem to me that this sentence is structured correctly. The part that I question is this:

"Freud ... proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer."

I made a change to this sentence so that it reads as follows:

"Freud ... proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing sensory stimulii as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer."

Polisher feels the original sentence was correctly structured and that mine is not. I disagree, but having said that I think I now see what the original author of the sentence probably had in mind. I would propose changing the sentence to this instead:

"Freud ... proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that which would otherwise awake the dreamer."

I believe the addition of the word "which" is a better, less intrusive fix.

Note: If you read Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams", he does talk about "sensory stimulii" being adapted by a dream in order to allow the dreamer to continue sleeping. If a phone rings, for instance, I may dream about something that sounds like that -- possibly even dream about a phone ringing -- in a way that somehow "makes sense" in the context of my dream. The dream itself is prompted by unfulfilled wishes (although the actual content of the dream is not necessarily related directly to those wishes).

Thanks, Ron Rice Ron9000 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That sentence, regardless of grammatical niceties, is clearly badly written, and I am not opposed at all to its being rewritten. Thank you for trying. But I'm afraid that "representing sensory stimulii as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer" is an almost senseless statement. I have no idea what it means to say that anything could be represented "as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer" - that seems to imply that the quality of otherwise awaking the dreamer is part of what is "represented" in the dream, which is absurd. The suggested alternative, "proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that which would otherwise awake the dreamer", is grammatically dubious as well. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry, PoC, but your grasp of English grammar is significantly less than stellar. I shall desist in attempting to convince you otherwise, however. Ron9000 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am simply confusing incorrect grammar with inelegant writing. They can often be difficult to distinguish. In any case, I am open to suggestions for rewriting that paragraph. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Roger that. Here is something Freud says about dreams as wish-fulfillment that might help clarify this:

"Indeed it is the anxiety dreams which seem to prevent a generalisation of the thesis that the dream is a wish-fulfilment, which we have established by means of the examples in the last section; they seem even to brand this thesis as an absurdity. It is not difficult, however, to escape these apparently conclusive objects.

"Please observe that our doctrine does not rest upon an acceptance of the manifest dream content, but has reference to the thought content which is found to lie behind the dream by the process of interpretation. Let us contrast the *manifest* and the *latent dream content*. It is true that there are dreams whose content is of the most painful nature. But has anyone ever tried to interpret these dreams, to disclose their latent thought content? If not, the two objections are no longer valid against us; there always remains the possibility that even painful and fearful dreams may be discovered to be wish fulfilments upon interpretation. (It is quite incredible with what stubbornness readers and critics exclude this consideration, and leave unheeded the fundamental differentiation between the manifest and the latent dream content.)" [Sigmund Freud, "The Interpretation of Dreams", Authorized Translation of Third Edition, page 114]

The article would no doubt be improved by quoting Freud more and paraphrasing him less. I myself am not qualified to rewrite this article or any part of it, however. I only wanted to correct what I think is a typo that resulted in an error in grammar, one which could be fixed most simply by inserting the word "which". Thanks, Ron9000 (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification required

I have set up a separate section for this as I don't want it to get in the way of the main discussion in the Third Opinion section [8].

Almanacer writes above:

Compare this [Levy's arguments] to the dogmsatism of Crews the self-avowed “Freud basher”. Are you seriously maintaing that the latter merits inclusion (or Eysenck or Domhoff, or a NYT journalist, or Estertons own blog postings for that matter).

1. I do not have a blog, though I do have a website. I have searched the Freud page to see what Almanacer can be referring to, and I can only find one candidate, the reference citation in footnote 88: "Esterson 2010 |Simplycharly.com". (The link doesn't work because the Simply Charly website has had a major overhaul and changed its basic URL. Incidentally, Simply Charly is not a blog, it is a reputable website [9].) As there is a second reference citation for this same item I'm perfectly happy for it to be removed.

All the other citations to my name are for my book, published by Open Court, a reputable publisher of academic books [10], or for my articles in the following scholarly journals: History of the Human Sciences, History of Psychology and History of Psychiatry, so perhaps Almanacer will clarify what he means by his reference to "Esterson's own blog postings" (in the plural).

2. Again, to keep this from muddying the waters of the main discussion above: It would help rational discussion if Almanacer were more moderate in his comments. Previously he has (erroneously) referred to Richard Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong as "the self-published polemics of a country bookseller". Now he uses an equally intemperate description of Crews, suggesting he doesn't "merit" inclusion on the Freud page. Crews has knowledge in depth of Freud's writings and of the literature on Freud, having been publishing on the subject for more than 30 years. His books relating to Freud include his collection of articles in Skeptical Engagements (1985), The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute (1995), Follies of the Wise (2005), and twenty editorial introductions to extracts from publications by a wide variety of authors on Freud in Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend. This obviously suffices for him to merit referencing on the Freud page, and to suggest otherwise is not very sensible. (On a minor detail, in relation to Almanacer's "self-avowed Freud-basher" comment I would be interested to know where Crews so describes himself. Perhaps Almanacer will oblige with a reference citation.)

That Almanacer even questions whether Eysenck, a major psychologist, or Domhoff [11], a researcher on dreams with numerous publications to his name, merit inclusion on the Freud page gives some indication why discussions with him on the Talk page tend to be somewhat fraught.

Concerning his referring to the article in the New York Times (citing the contents of a forthcoming article in a psychoanalytic journal), I have already stated that I intend to replace that passage with a more scholarly citation. Esterson (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Levy and testability

I have selected out this topic for separate consideration so it doesn't get mixed up with the other points of dispute in the Third Opinion section above.

Almanacer writes:

I have already responded in detail on the Talk Page, pointing out Levy’s references to testability (with cited page refs) are not reducible to an argument for “humanistic plausibility” but he continues to insist this is the case.

I have already rebutted this. The cited page references in Levy's book are pp. 46 and 51. [12]

p. 46: Contrary to what Almanacer writes, "testability" is not mentioned on this page, and all I can find is Levy's writing in a discussion of dream interpretation: "Roughly, if and when the associations to each element taken separately converge towards an interpretation, then the interpretation has been confirmed to some degree, even before it has been offered to the subject" (my emphasis). Levy's specific argument from convergence in the context of dreams can only be an argument for plausibility, not testability, otherwise virtually all analysts would provide roughly the same interpretation of a dream, which has been shown not to be the case. Just how little such procedures in dream interpretation have to do with scientific methodology is amply demonstrated by the fact that Freudians, Jungians and Kleinians provide very different interpretations of dreams in accord with their own theories.

p.51: In the context of "associative links" in dream interpretation, the relevant sentence is: "We are not in a position here to say that the dream is really not meaningful, as a testable fact, that the dream is really not meaningful…" So Levy is saying we are not in a position to say that it is a testable fact that a dream is not meaningful. How that shows Levy is arguing for the testability of Freudian theories I fail to see. Alamanacer seems to think that just because he has found the word "testability" on one of Levy's pages he has demonstrated that the author has provided an argument for the scientific status of Freudian theories.

In short, Almanacer has failed in his claim that his citing "Levy’s references to testability (with cited page refs)" refutes my contention that Levy's arguments throughout the book are based on “plausibility” rather than scientific validation; on the contrary, the actual contexts of pp. 46 and 51 show they are precisely that. I repeat my invitation for him to provide a sentence paraphrasing a citation from Levy's book where he explicitly makes a case specifically for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories, which I would be happy to accept.

Almanacer has not specifically addressed my main point in regard to his second sentence, where in the context of "Freud’s scientific credibility" he writes that "Levy argues for the importance of clinical case material". I have already provided a lengthy discussion of why clinical case material cannot possibly provide anything remotely like scientific validation of Freud's theories. I'll just add here Michael Martin: "'Verification' of clinical interpretations continues to be the main source of verification seriously accepted by therapists. But from the clinical point of view, there is no way to decide between rival schools" (Inquiry, 7, 1964, p. 17). And Richard Nisbett identified this "weakness" of evidence derived from clinical case material: "Psychoanalysis has never adequately dealt with the problem of identifying whether a given link exists in the mind of the patient, or only of the analyst" (Human Inference: Strategem and Shortcomings of Social Judgement, 1980, p. 243). The notion that clinical case material can provide scientific validation of Freudian theories does not stand up to the most basic examination, and in any case Levy himself does not say that it provides scientific validation for them. (If you disagree on this last point, Almanacer, provide a page reference where he does make this claim.)

Almanacer also writes:

You seem to be following PoC in the view that the Levy content is essentially a response to Grunbaum. This is not the case – only one chapter of the book cover the latter. Here is how Levy summarises his contribution to the debate :

“At most what has been achieved here is the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status, that is, Wittgenstein's conventionalistic view of interpretations, James's claim that unconscious ideas are incoherent and unnecessary, and Maclntyre's concern about the unverifiability of interpretations and the unobservability of the unconscious. None has stood up very well. On the other hand, I have not proved that psychoanalysis is a science, is part of a science, or is even a scientific discipline or technology. But saying this is hardly to concede anything at all; for to prove any of these things, a definition of science would be needed, and I am not alone among philosophers in recognizing the lack of any such thing.”

Leaving aside that my discussions of the second Levy sentence suffice to show that I have nowhere suggested that the Levy content is essentially a response to Grunbaum, I would be happy to accept a sentence presenting the limited view quoted above, as long as it was clear it was in the context of the views of certain philosophers. Esterson (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Introductory sentence of Science section

I have made a change in the first sentence of the Science section that I hope will not be controversial (I see no reason why it should be). I have replaced "psychoanalytic ideas" with "Freud's theories" as this is what constitutes the subject matter of Fisher and Greenberg's books. "Psychoanalytic ideas" covers a vastly greater ground given the different schools and the (relatively) newer approaches that have been fashionable over the past three decades or more, most of which would not include a considerable number of the theories included in F&G. Esterson (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also deleted the Crews citation as it is not specific enough for the Science section.Esterson (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Science Section

Query changes to Eysenck and Medawar quotations

A little while back, in the interests of accuracy and improved citation, I changed

Other viewponts include those of Eysenck, who claims that Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years, and Peter Medawar, who dismissed psychoanalysis as a confidence trick.

to

Other viewponts include Eysenck's contention that Freud set back the study of psychology and psychiatry "by something like fifty years or more", and Peter Medawar, who wrote that "the opinion is gaining ground that doctrinaire psychoanalytic theory is the most stupendous confidence trick of the twentieth century."

Polisher of Cobwebs has now reverted my change. I can appreciate that this was done in the interest of trimming the section, but should not accuracy be more important? In regard to the Eysenck alleged "hundred years" statement, I cannot find it in his 1986 book, and the actual quotation rather precludes its being there. Nor is any page number given in the current reference. I suggest reverting back to Eysenck's "fifty years or more" quotation, with the pagination in the reference. In regard to the Medawar statement, I'm happy to accept the paraphrase as representing Medawar's view, but I think the original source (i.e., where Medawar wrote the cited view) is preferable to a second hand reference (Webster).Esterson (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and make whatever changes you like; I don't object. Actually, I think you are quite right about the "hundred years" thing - thanks for pointing it out, as it had slipped my mind. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! Esterson (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Grünbaum

Almanacer favors the addition of the following text: "Whilst in agreement with Grünbaum regarding Popper, Donald Levy rejects Grünbaum's argument that therapeutic success is the empirical basis on which Freud’s theories stand or fall in that it rests on a “false dichotomy between intra- and extraclinical evidence”. In his wider consideration of and response to critics of Freud’s scientific credibility Levy argues for the importance of clinical case material and the concepts related to it, notably resistance and transference, in establishing the evidentiary status of Freud's work." The material, however, is only indirectly about Freud, and is obviously undue here. It is primarily criticism of Adolf Grünbaum, and it belongs in that article. The Grünbaum page is currently sadly devoid of worthwhile content, and the material about Levy would make a worthwhile addition there. But it does not belong here. It is not rational to seek to further extend an already very long article with indirectly relevant material of this nature. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 Bogus objections and failed arguments recycled from the last Talk Page which I will re-post if you continue to revert the Levy passage which I'm not adding but preventing you from deleting. Almanacer (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bogus objections? I beg your pardon? Do you mean to say that you can do nothing in response to what I've said except to announce that it's "bogus"? Wikipedia is a collaborative project, Almanacer - not a blog where you can shut out anyone you don't agree with or dislike. If you insist upon reposting past talk page discussions here, I shall remove them. Talk page archives exist for a reason. Incidentally, I think you will find that re-adding more disputed content to the science section that was removed in the past, as you did here, will only worsen matters. The reasons I gave for removing that material were quite clear, and Esterson agreed with me on this point. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Compare the self-published polemics of a country bookseller (Webster) with no academic credentials to a professional philosopher of science (Levy) defending Freud's scientific credibility against a wide range of critics and explain to me how the former but not the latter merits inclusion ?Almanacer (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer: Your description of Webster hardly illustrates any propensity on your part to make considered or dispassionate judgements. It is true that Webster, after briefly lecturing at the University of East Anglia where he graduated, owned a small-town bookstore, but he was also an occasional investigative journalist who published in the Guardian and New Statesman among other publications. It would also help if you could get your facts right. Why Freud Was Wrong was published in 1995 by HarperCollins in Britain and by Basic Books in the US, and the paperback edition the same year by Fontana, a section of HarperCollins at that time. The Orwell Press edition was self-published shortly afterwards by Webster because he wished to add an Afterword discussing the "recovered memory" movement in which he had just become interested through the British False Memory Society. (In addition to his bookstore, Webster owned a small publishing company.) He was also commissioned to write the short volume on Freud for "The Great Philosophers" series, published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson in 2003.

The description of Why Freud Was Wrong as "polemics" makes me wonder if you have even read it. Section 1, comprising some 300 pages, is devoted to a close examination of Freud's work and other relevant writings requiring a massive amount of research over a period of several years. The content and style are a long way from anything that can justifiably be called polemical.

It is true that Donald Levy is a professional philosopher (in the philosophy department at Brooklyn College, CUNY). From a Google search, judging from his very few publications there is nothing to suggest he is a philosopher of science as you describe him. I say this as a matter of accuracy, not because that in any way invalidates what he writes in his book Freud Among the Philosophers or elsewhere: his writings have to be judged on their merits, not on the credentials of the author. But he is only one philosopher, and I can cite rather more celebrated philosophers who take an entirely different view of claims that psychoanalysis is a science, e.g., Ernest Nagel and Sidney Hook (in Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy (1990 [1959]), pp. 38-56; 212-224). Nor does Freud Among the Philosophers deal with "a wide range of critics". On the contrary, two of the chapters are devoted mainly to Wittgenstein and Grunbaum, and the other two with ideas on the unconscious and unverifiability in the context of psychoanalysis, hardly the wide-ranging volume implied by Almanacer's description.

Having said that, I don't object in principle to mention being made of Levy, but I think the context only justifies the first sentence being retained (why should a relatively minor contributor to Freud studies be allotted more space than any of the other individuals cited in that paragraph?). I therefore propose a compromise: the first Levy sentence is retained, while the second Levy sentence is omitted. Esterson (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer's contrast between Webster and Levy misses the point. Webster's criticism is directly and primarily directed against Freud, making it directly relevant to the Freud article. Levy, in contrast, is criticizing Grünbaum, who was a critic of Popper, who was a critic of Freud. So it's criticism of a critic of a critic of Freud. It's ridiculous to suggest it's vital material for this article - obviously it's more pertinent to the Adolf Grünbaum page. The fact that Alamancer can't/won't answer this point doesn't make it any less valid. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. I think you have made a valid point. Esterson (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to introduce your proposed compromise, which I would support. I think Almanacer's aphasia addition to the science section should be simply removed, however - it's relevant material for the section on Freud's life, rather than to the legacy section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Having now appreciated the force of your argument above ("Levy... is criticizing Grünbaum, who was a critic of Popper, who was a critic of Freud), and in the light of the fact that I am hard pressed to find any explicit case for the scientific credentials of Freud's theories in Levy's book, rather than that they are meaningful or have strong plausibility (see new section below), I now find it difficult to justify the inclusion of a Levy citation in the Science section. If any suggestion is forthcoming, I'll be happy to consider it. Esterson (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best suggestion at this point would probably be to just remove the Levy material. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps PoC could try coming up with new arguments rather than rehashing old failed ones. The words “wider consideration” are readily understandable to anyone (apart from PoC ) as referencing other critics than Grunbaum. Unsurprisingly Esterton has a low opinion of and disagrees with Levy’s arguments (though if he needs re-read them more carefully - try Hempel in the index). Shocking news as this may be to him, this doesn’t preclude their legitimate inclusion. We all have to live with the inclusion of legitimate content we don’t agree with. So get used to it and stop posturing as an arbiter of the “obvious”.Almanacer (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of accusing PoC of rehashing old arguments, it would be appreciated if you actually addressed what PoC wrote, namely that the section is about Science in a Wikipedia page on Freud, but in your first Levy sentence he is criticizing Grünbaum, who was a critic of Popper, who was a critic of Freud, so it should be on the Grunbaum page, not the Freud page. Levy is not making a case for Freud in relation to his scientific credentials, but challenging a major element in Grunbaum's case for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories. In other words, this is not a case being made by Levy for Freud at all, it is a criticism of Grunbaum's understanding of Freud. Esterson (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer accuses me of rehashing old, failed arguments. So far as I know, an argument's age has no relation to whether it is correct or not. As for my arguments being "failed", I have to wonder by what criteria Almanacer considers them to be that? If a "failed" argument is any argument that doesn't convince him, then I am sure that any argument I make will fail. But Almanacer isn't in sole control of Wikipedia, and so that's not the standard by which things will be judged. The Levy material has been discussed, and no one supports it other than Almanacer. The Aphasia addition to the science section has been discussed, and no one supports it other than Almanacer. The Stafford-Clark material has been discussed, and no one supports it other than Almanacer. Almanacer's additions have been opposed by every editor to have commented on them so far, yet he continues to make them, and even accuses me of violating NPOV in edit summaries, eg here. I am finding his behavior increasingly outrageous. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

PoC's account of previous exhanges on the current disputed issues are seriously inaccurate and misleading in response to which I am reposting a section of the previous Talk Page discussion as context for any third party deliberation. As is evident there has been siginifcant opposition to his deletion agenda from other editors and he has been frequently reminded that WP guidelines discourage the removal of appropriately sourced and verifiable content.

A month after a Dispute Procedure took place and a compromise took effect which included the Levy content, he resumed his deletion agenda with exactly the same arguments he had failed to convince with before and with continued lack of consideration to a NPOV balance of opinion. He continues to maintain, supported by Esterton's misreading of Levy, that the latter's response to critics of Freud (such Wittgenstein, Popper, James, McIntyre and Grunbaum) - his claim that eg "what has been achieved here is the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having a scientfic status" (p. 126) - should be removed when it is manifestly relevant to the debate on Freud's scientific legacy.

The chapter pp 129-165 on Grunbaum's "great misreading of Freud" which, BTW, has no reference to Popper (as is claimed), is a response to "the most important philosophical rejection of the scientific credibility of Freud's work ever to appear" (p 129) As such reference to it is entirely appropriate in the Science section. Almanacer (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer seems to be suggesting that there is some absolute rule that sourced and verifiable content cannot be removed. There is no such rule. Sourced, verifiable content can be removed for many reasons, including (for instance) enforcement of WP:BLP. Though that's not an issue here, other policies that can support removal of excessive material and details, such as WP:UNDUE, certainly are. So far as NPOV is concerned, the fact is that every one of Almanacer's recent edits to the science section of this article has had the effect of either removing criticism of Freud or adding material favorable to Freud - not exactly neutral editing. I, in contrast, have always been concerned with maintaining a balanced article, and to that end have added the views of both critics and supporters of Freud, so that both are properly represented. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Where removing sourced, verifiable content is concerned, it should be noted that despite his objections to me doing this, Almanacer has done it himself when it suits him, eg, here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Levy Talk Page discussion

I am reposting the originating commment by Hypoplectrus which got lost in an archiving operation. Almanacer (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

[REPOSTING OF TALK PAGE REDACTED]

Almanacer, talk page archives exist for a reason. They exist precisely so that old discussions do not clog talk pages forever and new discussions can proceed. Anyone interested in the old discussions can find them in the talk archives - no one needs you to repost anything here. If you like, then you could post a link to the old talk page discussions, or summarize their more salient points, but please do not keep resposting them here in full - it's a gross abuse of talk page space. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that was done for my benefit, I have now read through that discussion anyway. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm responding to the request for a third opinion posted at WP:3O. Please note that, since more than two editors have already commented, the right to a third opinion is not automatic. But I'm going to go ahead and give one. Please wait a short while for me to look at the material. Formerip (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please note that third opinions are not binding.

1) From the additional discussions posted above, it is clear that the "science" section of the article has been problematic. I do have views about that, but I'll keep them to myself, because I don't think it is useful to get a third opinion on the wider issues that many editors have already commented on.

2) The question of whether/how the theories of Freud can be called "scientific" has been very, very widely written about. This is true to the extent that there is a feast of sources available for potential inclusion in the section. This includes material by many of the most notable science writers, psychologists and philosophers of the 20th and early 21st centuries.

3) The "science" section should therefore focus on views expressed by people generally considered to be "heavy hitters" on the subject. Who these are can easily be gleaned by looking at summaries of the topic in any number of reputable books or by reasonably careful Googling.

4) Do you notice what happens when two square brackets are put either side of the name "Donald Levy"? AFAICT, he has a PhD in philosophy from Cornell and has published a book about Freud, which is not to be sniffed at, but I don't think it puts him the correct league for inclusion.

5) I happen not to think it is a good argument that Levy is criticising Grünbaum's critique of Popper's critique of Freud, rather than criticising Freud directly. It's still all about Freud and it's contained in a book with the giveaway title Freud and the Philosopher. And are we supposed to restrict ourselves to critics of critics and then stop for some reason? However, that's all beside the point.

6) The quality of Levy's argument (as we perceive it) should be not be given undue weight in considering whether to include it. We should focus instead on its impact, which seems fairly limited when we consider all the trees that have given their lives so that people could offer their views about Freud. It would probably be easy to chose a more noteworthy response to Grünbaum.

7) Levy's view should not, therefore, be included in the section. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with some of what you have said, and I stand by my argument that the Levy material is more about Grünbaum than it is about Freud. I also don't think it's very relevant that Levy doesn't have his own article on Wikipedia - there is an astonishingly wide range of important or significant things that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on. Nevertheless, your comments are helpful, FormerIP, and I thank you for making them, especially since this wasn't strictly a 3O situation. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that coverage in WP is not always the best guide to what is important. But an academic with no article whatsoever is probably not among the leading commentators on Freud of his generation. But consider the context of a paragraph that juxtaposes Levy with Grünbaum, Eysenck and Popper. I'm reminded of David Brent's admiration for "Milligan, Cleese, Sessions" (apologies if you are not British). This doesn't apply only to Levy. I don't see why the view of Peter Medawar is important in this section and the inclusion of Richard Webster is at questionable. We ought to do better on such an important debate. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Medawar and Webster are both very well known critics of Freud, which is why I included them. As I've said, I don't include material of this kind because I necessarily agree with it personally, but so that all sides in the debate are represented. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Formerip: Thanks for your input. First specifically on Almanacer's two Levy sentences in question: I do not think the first Levy sentence is appropriate for the Freud Science section because in the chapter in question Levy is criticising Grunbaum (i) in regard to a central element (the Necessary Condition Thesis) in Grunbaum's argument for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories and (ii) on the grounds that Grunbaum misunderstands/misrepresents Freud. As PoC has said, the appropriate place for this is on the Grunbaum page. In the second Levy sentence Almanacer writes that Levy "argues for the importance of clinical case material and the concepts related to it, notably resistance and transference in establishing the evidentiary status of Freud's work." But evidentiary status is by no means the same as scientific status (e.g., the former is equally applicable to history and other non-scientific disciplines), and it is difficult to see how clinical case material can contribute to the scientific credentials of Freudian theories given the numerous well-documented demonstrations of the unreliability of such material (not to mention that different schools of psychoanalysis, e.g., Freudian, Jungian, Kleinian, come up with different clinical findings in accord with the theories of the respective analysts). In short, Almanacer's second Levy sentence does not provide an argument for the specifically scientific credentials of Freudian theories, and on that account is not appropriate for the Science section.

On your more general comments, I cannot agree that the inclusion of Richard Webster[13] is questionable. Part 1 of his book Why Freud Was Wrong (some 300 pages) is a thoroughly researched in-depth study of Freud's writings and clinical claims. To cite three informed reviewers, Anthony Storr described it as is "one of the best books written on Freud and twentieth-century ideas of human nature", Anthony Clare wrote that "Precisely because he is at pains to give Freud the benefit of the doubt at virtually every turn, he is arguably the most devastating critic of them all", and in the view of Raymond Tallis, "Why Freud Was Wrong is at once a major intellectual biography and a signal contribution to the intellectual history of our times". (Note: I am not, of course, saying these views are necessarily correct, only pointing out that Webster's book has been highly praised by informed commentators, and as such his view is worthy of being cited in the Science section.) Webster was also commissioned to write the Freud volume in the "Great Philosophers" series published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

I do agree with your questioning Peter Medawar's inclusion, as he has not published major articles or books on Freud. On the other hand, a notable omission is Malcolm Macmillan [14], who published a massive study Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc (MIT Press, 1997). Morris Eagle[15] wrote of the book: "Although there may be a veritable torrent of books on Freud, there are few that can compare with this one in its historical breadth and detail and the comprehensiveness of its critique of Freudian theory." Macmillan concluded that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes" (p. xxiii), and I think the sentence on Medawar should be replaced by one citing Macmillan. Esterson (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

An afterthought to my first paragraph immediately above. If Almanacer can provide a sentence paraphrasing a citation from Levy's book where he explicitly makes a case specifically for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories (rather than for their evidential status, which is a humanistic criterion, i.e., one that pertains also to the humanities), I would be perfectly happy for it to be included in the Science section. Esterson (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

After seeing Esterson's comments, I don't object to Medawar being removed, if anyone wishes to do that. I agree Macmillan would make a good addition. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your input. I'm glad you were able to review the earlier exchanges before PoC deleted them. So you will realise that the Levy content was added in response to a POV Neutrality Dispute notice (which still applies) in part to a address the a serious imbalance between pro and anti Freud content ( which nonetheless still remaims at 1:2). The content was amended several times in response to comments from other editors ( and following a Dispute procedure) and remained in place thereafter until peremtory removal by PoC, triggering the current edit war. Of course there may be better contributions to the debate than Levy's, as you suggest, but my view remains that at least until these are added to the article the Levy content should remain in place. The "correct league for inclusion" has to be assesed in relation to other cited authors such as Crews, Webster, Domhoff and a New York Times journalist in comparison to which his credentials are more than adequate. We are where we are with the article though I agree we ought to do better. We could certainly make a start, I agree by removing Medawar ( his 40 year old opinion of other's opinions) and Webster who has no academic standing. Almanacer (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, despite a common misperception to the contrary, NPOV does not require that "pro" and "anti" views of a subject must receive equal space in an article about it, no matter what the subject may be. It requires rather that the article reflect the balance of opinions in reliable sources that discuss the subject. It just happens to be the case that the views on Freud and psychoanalysis in reliable sources are more often critical than they are favorable, and so naturally one would expect there to be somewhat more coverage of critical than supportive views. No one other than you favors the inclusion of the Levy material - do you really think it would be reasonable to try single-handedly to keep it in the article when three other editors have rejected it? (NB, I agree with the reasons Esterson gave for keeping Webster in the article). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer's response exemplifies why this dispute has continued for so long. He repeats assertions which have been rebutted (sometimes several times) without addressing the specific content of the rebuttals.

1. Quote: "The content [of his first Levy postings] was amended several times in response to comments from other editors (and following a Dispute procedure)"

The content to which Almanacer refers was a disproportionate posting (five sentences) devoted to Levy's views. As I repeatedly pointed out[16], his original amendments did not address the two main points in my objection (and, I should add, Almanacer posted his amendments without prior discussion despite the fact there was an ongoing debate on the Talk page). After several weeks of maintaining his essential position to which PoC and I objected, Almanacer only agreed to reduce the content after I took the issue to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard when it became apparent that not a single one of the editors who contributed to the discussion supported his position.

2. Quote: "my view remains that at least until these are added to the article the Levy content should remain in place..."

It suits Almanacer to recommend the status quo because it includes his current Levy sentences which were posted without prior consultation despite there being an ongoing debate and in the face of opposition from two editors, PoC and me. I note that Almanacer has failed to address the objections made immediately above (and previously), notably that his second Levy sentence cites "clinical case material" and associated concepts as providing support for the "evidentiary status" of Freud's theories, but that the latter term applies to humanistic criteria and is not specifically scientific and therefore is inappropriate for the Science section. I stated that if he can provide a sentence paraphrasing a citation from Levy's book where he explicitly makes a case specifically for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories I would be happy to accept it. I await his proposing such a sentence.

3. Quote: "The 'correct league for inclusion' has to be assesed in relation to other cited authors such as Crews, Webster, Domhoff and a New York Times journalist in comparison to which his credentials are more than adequate… "

Neither I nor PoC have questioned the credentials of Levy for inclusion in the Science section, it was the specific content we took issue with. Almanacer does have a case in relation to the New York Times journalist (though a scholarly journal is cited for the source). I have a scholarly source saying much the same thing and shall post it in place of the New York Times citation.

4. Quote: "We could certainly make a start by removing… Webster who has no academic standing."

As so often, Almanacer has chosen to ignore my two comments on Webster above, the first in response to his mischaracterisation of Webster's book as "the self-published polemics of a country bookseller", and the one immediately above giving ample reason why it is perfectly legitimate to cite Webster. I'm unclear what Almanacer means by Webster having no academic standing. In any case, leaving aside that he briefly taught at the University of East Anglia, it is by its content that a publication should be judged, and I noted above the high praise Why Freud Was Wrong received from informed academics/professionals.

5. Quote: "So you will realise that the Levy content was added in response to a POV Neutrality Dispute notice (which still applies) in part to a address the a serious imbalance between pro and anti Freud content ( which nonetheless still remaims at 1:2)."

The Levy content posted in the Science section was originally justified by Almanacer on the grounds of the even greater imbalance there. As I have pointed out several times (including on DRN), such an imbalance in the Science section does not reflect bias, but is roughly what one might expect, given that anti-Freud authors set great store on the scientific issue, whereas this is not the case for many advocates of Freud. The eminent psychoanalyst Louis Breger argues that psychoanalysis is not a science, and several notable authors argue that it is an hermeneutic (interpretative) discourse, not a scientific discipline (Habermas, Ricoeur, George Klein, Schafer and Spence), while many psychoanalytic writers regard the "scientific" issue as of no great importance.

The 1:2 ratio does not take into account that there are long stretches where Freud's ideas are laid out very fully, e.g., under the multi-section Ideas, so that the ratio noted by Almanacer does not reflect the overall content of the Freud page. Moreover, it is the case that Freudian psychoanalysis has for some time been in serious decline, reflected in numerous writings such as those of Nathan Hale [17] (The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States (1995)) and Paul Stepansky [18] (Psychoanalysis at the Margins, 2009), both strongly sympathetic towards psychoanalysis. All this means, I suggest, that the ratio cited by Almanacer does not have the significance he believes. Esterson (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given my opinion on Levy, so I'm not going to add more to that, but I'll say a couple more things.

It's absolutely not the case that the section should equally cover supporters and detractors of Freud's scientificness, because it's not really a question on which the jury is still out. The section should really reflect the mainstream opinion that Freudian theories are unscientific and then note that there are dissenters from this view (very different from the way it is currently constructed). As Esterson suggests, for many of those who continue to look to Freud, the question is a red herring, and there is plenty of space in the article to talk about Freud's continuing influence in literary criticism, cultural studies and so on.

It is probably fair to say that Freud is owed a debt for a number of contributions he has made to science. This is a separate question from that regarding his method, but I think it should also be something covered in the section. For example, within his method is an indifference to taboos, which is undoubtedly a major catalyst for subsequent study of sexuality. Also, the notion of consequential phases in human development, even if the Freudian schemata are no longer taken seriously. There are undoubtedly other examples.

Lastly, I really think it should be taken seriously that it should require a high benchmark for someone to be cited on academic questions related to Freud. A lorra lorra people have written about him and I think we really do need to be discriminating. But I think there's a fairly well-established lineage of criticism and counter-criticism, which is what the article ought to reflect. For example, no mention of Wolpe & Rachman. Why is this? I've not been around, so it is not for me to say really. Formerip (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection, in principle, to the science section being rewritten in the way FormerIP suggests. I don't have any thoughts myself on how this should be done, however. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Formerip: I appreciate your willingness to come in on this discussion, but for the moment I think we should concentrate on the reason why PoC sought a third opinion, namely that the dispute between Almanacer and two other editors (PoC and me) on his Levy sentences has reached an impasse. As you say, you have made your views on this known, though since then I have spelled out again my point that the second Levy sentence is explicitly about the "evidentiary status" of Freudian theories based on "clinical case material" and that as such it appeals to criteria equally applicable to the humanities (history, sociology, etc) and therefore is not appropriate for the Science section. See above point 2, and then the subsidiary argument in the lengthy final paragraph in the section below ("Examination of Almanacer's second Levy sentence") for why "clinical case material" cannot possibly provide reliable data for validating Freud's theories as required by scientific norms.

I await Almanacer's response to the this specific point. Esterson (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Formerip: You have been misled by PoC and Esterton’s misrepresentation of the terms of the current debate in a number of respects:

1) No one is arguing or has ever argued for equal representation, only for “fair representation”, as the guidelines put it, of a significant minority viewpoint in defence of Freud in response to the numerous critical viewpoints cited. Without the Levy content this viewpoint will have no representation. As you are now aware there was extensive debate on this topic and agreement was reached, only to be disrupted by PoC’s resumption of his attritional deletion agenda a month or so after the Levy text was agreed (and the Talk Page record of the debate was archived). He made no argument for deleting the Levy text, simply declaring it to be “superfluous”. His subsequent re-statement of his previous arguments you dealt with fairly yourself. Nor, BTW, has he justified his many other deletions of longstanding pro-Freud content some of which I have, and will continue to, restore to the article.

2) The debate is not just between me, PoC and Esterton. Two other editors (see the Talk Page) have objected to his deletion of the Levy text, one of whom was responsible for the POV Neutrality notice that remains in place. His view, which I endorse, was that the then content was: “a log of criticisms of Freud from weak unauthoritative sources” and that “criticisms of Freud be broken out into a separate section or even a separate article so that this article can do the job of explaining who Freud was and what he did without polemical interference.” Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC). However, an important difference between the two rival views is that on one side we may disapprove of certain content, eg I agree removing Webster would improve the article, but I am not proposing to delete this or any content in contrast to the ongoing deletion of article material and information by the other side. (The only deletion I have made is of a 92 year old text on the grounds of its age and current relevance).

3) You seem to be following PoC in the view that the Levy content is essentially a response to Grunbaum. This is not the case – only one chapter of the book cover the latter. Here is how Levy summarises his contribution to the debate :

“At most what has been achieved here is the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status, that is, Wittgenstein's conventionalistic view of interpretations, James's claim that unconscious ideas are incoherent and unnecessary, and Maclntyre's concern about the unverifiability of interpretations and the unobservability of the unconscious. None has stood up very well.

On the other hand, I have not proved that psychoanalysis is a science, is part of a science, or is even a scientific discipline or technology. But saying this is hardly to concede anything at all; for to prove any of these things, a definition of science would be needed, and I am not alone among philosophers in recognizing the lack of any such thing.”

The fact that Levy covers such a wide range of critics (Popper, Coiffi as well as Grunbaum are also dealt with) and is undogmattically claiming to have preserved a possibility rather than conclusively proved anything seems to me to make him a appropriate addition to the article from which readers can then explore an exntesive range of the debate. Compare this to the dogmsatism of Crews the self-avowed “Freud basher”. Are you seriously maintaing that the latter merits inclusion (or Eysenck or Domhoff, or a NYT journalist, or Estertons own blog postings for that matter) but not Levy ?

4) Unlike Levy and many other philosophers of science Esterton believes he can tell us what “scientific norms” are and how the former fails to satisfy them. I have already responded in detail on the Talk Page, pointing out Levy’s references to testability (with cited page refs) are not reducible to an argument for “humanistic plausibility” but he continues to insist this is the case. As you rightly point out any given editor’s disagreement with cited sources are not conclusive grounds for vetoing their inclusion. Which is not to say that that the Levy content can’t be improved or made clearer and I will look into this. I remain unclear as to what part of “the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status” he fails to understand. Almanacer (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, it is simply untrue that, without Levy, the article would have nothing supportive of Freud. Fisher and Greenberg are partly supportive of Freud. The final paragraph, on neuro-psychoanalysis, cites a number of views supportive of Freud, including that of Eric Kandel. This material, coming from scientists, is of much greater consequence in a science section than the views of Levy, a simple philosopher. I stand by my contention that Levy's is simply one more opinion, and a superfluous one for this article. If you continue to restore what you call "pro-Freud" content to the article, I shall remove it, as it has no support here on the talk page. You are in effect making a threat to continue edit warring, in order to restore content supported by absolutely no one other than you. I seriously suggest you reconsider. Though you refuse to admit the fact, the reasons for removing the content in question - Stafford-Clark's comments on Freud, and the Aphasia material - were perfectly clear, and you have never properly responded to them.

Stafford-Clark was a minor writer, and his opinions about Freud and psychoanalysis have no particular significance in the larger context of debates over these subjects. The aphasia material, describing how, in the year 1891, Freud published a paper on aphasia, is quite simply out of place in a section on Freud's legacy, which concerns the influence of Freud's ideas after his death! If in 1891 Freud published a paper on aphasia, then that piece of information belongs in the section of the article on Freud's life, like the fact that in 1899 he published The Interpretation of Dreams, and like everything else he did while alive. It's totally inappropriate to place it at the opening of the science section, which clearly needs to begin instead by mentioning research projects to test psychoanalytic ideas. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer: I happen to agree with you on a couple of points you make above, but while we are immersed in disputes about your Levy sentences it is impossible to go beyond them, because discussion of several items in one go is too confusing. So I hope you will address my very specific comments in the "Levy and testability" section below.

I will say here that I disagree with PoC saying that David Stafford-Clark should be excluded on the grounds he was a minor writer. His professional credentials were more than adequate, and he did write one book specifically devoted to Freud: What Freud Really Said (Penguin, 1965). However, I do not believe the actual comment of his that is paraphrased in the deleted sentence is appropriate for the Science section ("This was man whose name will rank with those of Darwin, Copernicus, Newton, Marx and Einstein"), as he goes on to commend Freud not as a scientist, but on the more general grounds that he "really made a difference to the way the rest of us can begin to think about the meaning of human life and society". (Marx, of course, was also not a scientist.) Esterson (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Esterson, if you think there is anything worthwhile in Stafford-Clark's book that could be added to the article, I don't have any objection to its being used. I doubt, however, that there would be anything particularly helpful there. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing appropriate for the science section. It is an uncritical summary of Freud's theories and practice written in 1965. Nowhere does he consider Freudian theory in the context of its scientific credentials, and there's no reason why he should have done, especially at that time. As I've written elsewhere, there are plenty of proponents of Freudian psychoanalysis who are not particularly interested in whether or not it has conventional scientific credentials. Esterson (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to contribute futher to the debate but on the condition that PoC suspends his deletion agenda which, as you imply, is a consraint on making any progress by means of the collaborative editing process which reached agreement on the Levy text and which he is obdurately seeking to anul (which is not to say the latter cannot be clarified/improved) Almanacer (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, in order for me to agree to suspend my "deletion agenda" I would first have to agree that I do have a "deletion agenda." I don't accept that label as a description of my approach to editing. I am refraining, for the time being, from removing the Levy material, but that's not to say I don't think it should be removed. Nor do I think you are in a position to be issuing diktats to others about the conditions under which discussion will or will not take place. If anything has interfered with collaborative editing, it has been your insistence on restoring content that no one except you supports, including but not limited to the Aphasia material in the science section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What I’ve said is that I don’t propose to engage in further discussion over the Levy content until you remove your threat to delete it and accept it as a legitimate part of the article. My reason is simply that discussion and further amendment is a waste of everybody’s time if you are going to declare the resulting content “superflouous” or whatever unargued denigration you choose and delete it again as you did after the last extensive discussion and DR process. I’m not advising anyone else what to do or issuing diktats as you put it. And adding content to WP does not require your or anyone else’s permission, or expressions of support – so you have no idea what the level of support is and neither have I - or a referendum on the additions. I don’t agree with Esterton’s view on Stafford-Clark – apart from his objection to your characterisation of him - so I will be restoring the content. Its longevity on the page (several years) is evidence for support and the short additional quotation I have added re “scientific respectability” enhances its relevance. I think your deletion of eight or so pro-Freud items from the page can reasonably be described as an agenda. Almanacer (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In reponse to PoC's saying:

I don't accept that label as a description of my approach to editing. I am refraining, for the time being, from removing the Levy material, but that's not to say I don't think it should be removed.

With the aim of ending the impasse I was going to suggest that we agree to leave the Levy sentences as they stand despite both PoC and I disputing their presence in their current form.

I suggested in the "Levy and testability" section below that you formulate a sentence paraphrasing what Levy wrote in that lengthy quotation you gave, but you have made no response. There could have been some agreement had you provided such a sentence. I think the problem in the latest stages of the dispute is that you and I have got bogged down in details because in defence of your sentence you have overstated what Levy actually has done (or indeed attempted to do) in his book, as shown by his writing "On the other hand, I have not proved that psychoanalysis is a science, is part of a science, or is even a scientific discipline or technology." But putting that aside, as I say, I've reached a stage when I'm prepared to accept your Levy sentences as they stand to bring this seemingly endless dispute to an end.

Unfortunately you've made such an agreement more difficult now by announcing you are going to reinstate the Stafford-Clark quotation:

I don’t agree with Esterton’s view on Stafford-Clark – apart from his objection to your characterisation of him - so I will be restoring the content.

This exemplifies one of the problems in these exchanges. Though I disagreed with PoC in that Stafford-Clark should not be dismissed as unsuitable for citing I spelled out clearly why the quotation was inappropriate for the Science section. Nowhere in his book does he address the issue of the scientific credentials of Freud's theories, and as my quoting of his follow-up sentence showed, the quoted Stafford-Clark sentence was not in a scientific context. Yet without even addressing this point you have peremptorily announced you are going to reinstate it. Whatever the rights or wrongs of PoC's deleting material in his endeavoring to reduce the Legacy section, it is unhelpful for you to reinstate the Stafford-Clark quotation unless you can justify doing so on the Talk page. I therefore urge you to explain what is wrong with my explanation above before you reinstate it. We might then be in a position to reach some accommodation on the lines I suggested above, with a concession made to you on the Levy sentences in spite of the objections I have spelled out previously. Esterson (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, you are absolutely right that your "adding content to WP" does not require my or anyone else’s permission. However, it equally does not require your or anyone else's permission for me to delete content from Wikipedia. Neither I nor other editors are under any obligation to not remove something from Wikipedia that you might choose to add. The rules of the site just don't work that way. Everything is subject to WP:CONSENSUS, and if there is consensus that something should be removed, then out it goes. I have stated my reasons for removing Levy a large number of times, and your repeating over and over again that I've made no arguments doesn't make that true. As for saying that I "have no idea what the level of support is", I actually have a fairly good idea what the level of support is. A small number of editors have commented on the Levy material (me, Esterson, and FormerIP), and all of them other than you have supported removing Levy at some stage. Apparently Esterson supports keeping Levy in some form now, but only as a compromise with you. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Stafford-Clark, it's irrelevant that I might have disagreed with Esterson about the exact reasons why his comments should be removed if we agree that they should go. Announcing that you are going to restore them regardless of the fact that there is no support for that from other editors just suggests that you don't understand how Wikipedia is meant to work, frankly. Restore that content regardless of views on the talk page, and the result will probably only be that you will discredit yourself in the eyes of other editors, including those who will be forced to concern themselves with this dispute if you keep prolonging it this way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

PoC wrote: "Apparently Esterson supports keeping Levy in some form now, but only as a compromise with you. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that."

I have twice said that if Almanacer can provide a sentence paraphrasing a citation from Levy's book where he explicitly makes a case specifically for the scientific credentials of Freudian theories I would be happy to accept it, but instead of doing so he repeated yet again his claim that what Levy wrote on pp. 46 and 51 suffices despite the fact that I have repeatedly shown that is not the case, and have done so again in the "Levy and testability" section below: [19]

Since then I also wrote that I would be happy to accept a sentence based on the passage Almanacer quoted as Levy's summarising his contribution to the debate:

“At most what has been achieved here is the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status, that is, Wittgenstein's conventionalistic view of interpretations, James's claim that unconscious ideas are incoherent and unnecessary, and Maclntyre's concern about the unverifiability of interpretations and the unobservability of the unconscious. None has stood up very well. On the other hand, I have not proved that psychoanalysis is a science, is part of a science, or is even a scientific discipline or technology. But saying this is hardly to concede anything at all; for to prove any of these things, a definition of science would be needed, and I am not alone among philosophers in recognizing the lack of any such thing.”

Unfortunately Almanacer has ignored both my requests. If he would at least respond to my two suggestions for a Levy contribution instead of ignoring them we can then think about how we go on from here. Esterson (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Esterton: I fully understand your objections to the validity of Levy claims (now presented with amended wording) for clinical case material in establishing the evidentiary status of Freud's work but that is his case and all I am doing is describing it. I appreciate your return to your original position on Levy which was, if I may remind you (and PoC):

I agree with Almanacer that if the paragraph referencing authors who argue that psychoanalysis is not scientific, or is a pseudo-science, is kept, then so should the paragraph referencing authors who argue for its scientific credentials. Esterson (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don’t have the Stafford-Clark to hand at the moment so I’m not going to press the case for reverting PoC’s deletion. I’ve brought the Kandel quotes together in the same paragraph as they are both from the same paper. Almanacer (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The amount of space given to Levy in the science section is clearly excessive, though that's hardly its only problem. The science section of this article is a mess. I disapprove of it strongly, and I think it needs rewriting altogether. I'm not sure how to go about fixing it, however. I think a case could be made for removing both Popper and Grunbaum entirely and placing them in the philosophy section instead - reflecting the fact that backgrounds were principally in philosophy. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer: With your current changes on the Freud page you have again shown why it is so difficult to have reasonable discussions with you on this Talk page. I have made overtures to you, including being prepared to make a major concession even where I thought you have no justification for your wording for an item in the Science section. Instead of taking the opportunity to further this discussion you go ahead and post your new items without allowing consideration of them from other editors.

1. I do not agree it makes sense to combine two Kandel quotations as you have done, because whereas the original one was in its appropriate place, putting it together with the more recent one is inappropriate because that paragraph is specifically about the decline of psychoanalysis in psychiatry and in university psychology departments, so the newly added quotation is out of place there.

2 On your Levy sentence addition in particular it is especially poor practice on your part, because it is on this topic I made my overtures, and yet you fail to discuss it on the Talk page and go ahead with your new posting with an added item to the second sentence that is already in dispute. The second sentence as it now stands mixes two things, Levy's conclusions from a passage in which he says that he has "not proved that psychoanalysis is a science, is part of a science, or is even a scientific discipline" (which I note you don't cite), and a statement about the "evidentiary status" of psychoanalysis which is not the same as its scientific status, which should be the context for the Science section. (I was prepared to compromise on this, but by posting without consultation you have ridden roughshod over my overture.) Nor are your words "made by a number of Freud critics" satisfactory, because they fail to make clear the context in which Levy is writing, namely the views of some prominent philosophers whose discussion of psychoanalysis is on an entirely different, somewhat rarified, level than that of the great majority of "Freud critics".

For these reasons I regard both your changes as unsatisfactory, and I urge you to return to the Talk page and present your suggestion on the Levy passage directly in response to my current attempt to reach a mutually agreed conclusion. Esterson (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to address this from Almanacer:

I appreciate your return to your original position on Levy which was, if I may remind you (and PoC):

I agree with Almanacer that if the paragraph referencing authors who argue that psychoanalysis is not scientific, or is a pseudo-science, is kept, then so should the paragraph referencing authors who argue for its scientific credentials. Esterson (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the position I was proposing before you (i) announced you would be reinstating the Stafford-Clark though you failed to address my stated reasons why it was inappropriate for the Science section, and (ii) you went ahead and posted your amendment to the Levy sentence without consultation.

To clarify the valid point you raise above on my statement of 4 October. Since then I have realized that the sentence in question justifies evidentiary credentials, not scientific credentials. But it was precisely on this sentence that I offered to concede to you before you went ahead and posted without consultation. If you will let my reversion stand, we will then be in a position to agree that your original formulation stands, though I would expect that after that you would respect my urging you to discuss significant changes on the Talk page before posting. Esterson (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a response from Almanacer to my last posting immediately above, I propose that the second Levy sentence be replaced by

More generally, Levy, while acknowledging he had "not proved that psychoanalysis is a science… or even a scientific discipline", states that he had demolished "certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status" as argued by some noted philosophers.

Given that this has the considerable merit of quoting Levy's own summing up of what he had achieved in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis and to the views of the philosophers whose contentions he addresses in his book, I hope this can be agreed so that we can move on. Esterson (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I restate yet again your rejection of the valdidity of Levy’s adducing clinical case material as empirical evidence is your POV and not grounds for removing or replacing the sentence referencing that view. What you propose to add is out of context (“this is hardly to concede anything at all” given the absence of a consensus on the definition of science which precludes “proof” for or against) and creates the impression Levy has failed to achieve an objective he set himself which is not the case. Levy’s overall conclusion is, as previously cited, is that “no good philosophical arguments against it (psychoanalysis) have been produced and much empirical evidence supports it” which I would be included to restore should you introduce your suggested text which I note constitues yet another change of position from agreeing the "original formulation stands" of a few days ago. I may not be able to keep up with your successive changes of mind on an immediate basis but I will be maintaining the existing text unless soemething else better is proposed Almanacer (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Esterson's proposed change. I would encourage him to go ahead and make it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Almanancer: First let me get out of the way your citing my suggesting we let the original formulation stand. I originally introduced this by saying "I was going to suggest" letting the current Levy sentences stand for no other reason than that this dispute has been going on for many weeks and your refusal to take part in an arbitration procedure precluded any resolution. But, as I went on to say, in the meantime your yet again posting a new version on the Freud page without consultation, the nature of that version, and your peremptorily stating you were going to reinstate the Stafford-Clark quotation without even addressing my reason for rejecting it has led me to reconsider my suggestion. Your failure to respond to my comments on this, plus the content of your latest posting reinforces my decision to reconsider.

Quote: "I restate yet again your rejection of the validity of Levy’s adducing clinical case material as empirical evidence is your POV and not grounds for removing or replacing the sentence referencing that view."

That clinical case material is manifestly unreliable as empirical evidence is not simply my POV, as both the substance of the last paragraph in this section shows[20] and the numerous quotations I have given from informed sources demonstrates. (E.g., Nisbet[21] and Ross[22], 1980 : "Psychoanalysis has never adequately dealt with the problem of identifying whether a given link exists in the mind of the patient, or only of the analyst".) Perhaps just once you might actually answer one of my specific points on this, such as this one: How can clinical case material be reliable empirical evidence when Freudians, Jungians and Kleinians come up with different clinical data according to their own theories? Please answer this.

Quote: "What you propose to add is out of context…"

On the contrary, it is entirely in the context of the Science section.

You cite what Levy goes on to say, "this is hardly to concede anything at all; for to prove any of these things, a definition of science would be needed, and I am not alone among philosophers in recognizing the lack of any such thing”. Everyone concedes there is no "definition" of science, but there are certain agreed norms, such as the replication of data. The latter is manifestly not the case for psychoanalysis, given the different clinical data adduced by different schools. Perhaps you would like to inform us when the "penis envy" that Freud invariably uncovered in his female patients has been replicated. Or Rank's "birth trauma" that other analysts started to find in their patients – until Freud spoke out against it and it ceased to be found?

Quote: "creates the impression Levy has failed to achieve an objective he set himself which is not the case."

It is extraordinary you should state this, as I have quoted exactly what Levy said himself he had achieved in the context of the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. In fact I softened it slightly as he actually says "at most" what has been achieved is the demolition of certain objections to the possibility of psychoanalysis having scientific status. In any case, it is not the job of editors to indicate whether an author has or has not "failed to achieve an objective", only to state what he contends he has done.

Quote: "I may not be able to keep up with your successive changes of mind on an immediate basis."

That I have changed my mind on a couple of occasions is something I am willing to admit when the situation changes (or when I recognise something I had not seen before), just as I have been willing to acknowledge when I made a mistake.

My proposed sentence states exactly what Levy says in his summing up of what he has achieved in the context of the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. It is already a concession on the part of PoC and me, neither of whom believe that a minor player writing on a very limited aspect of the subject (the views of a few eminent philosophers) merits a place on the Freud page. For you to add a phrase on Levy's stating in general terms his view that "much empirical evidence supports it" when he says explicitly that he has not demonstrated even that psychoanalysis is part of science would be preventing a much-needed consensus and ensuring more disputation. I urge you to take this opportunity and not insist on having the last word. Esterson (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

N.B. Seven other authors are cited in the same paragraph as the two Levy sentences in the Science section. In comparison with my proposed second Levy sentence, not one of them is given the amount of quoted material summing up his views in relation to the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis that I have given to Levy. Furthermore, Levy is allotted two sentences, more than anyone else. I urge Almanacer to recognise that this represents considerable concessions made by PoC and me, and take the opportunity to end this specific dispute at last. Esterson (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Esterson (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative way of resolving the current impasse, I propose the addition of the following sentence citing Morris Eagle, who has considerably greater academic and authorial status than Levy (e.g., 150 published papers): http://www.sigourneyaward.org/images/stories/eaglebriefcv.pdf, including two recent books not listed on the linked page: From Classical to Contemporary Psychoanalysis: A Critique and Integration, Routledge 2011 and Attachment and Psychoanalysis: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications, Guilford Publications, forthcoming February 2013.

In contrast, Morris Eagle states that it has "been demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".

If the current second Levy sentence is allowed to stand I propose to make it more accurate by adding "philosophical" so that it reads "response to philosophical critics of Freud's scientific credibility", as there is a considerable literature critical of the scientific status of Freudian theory on the practical grounds of weaknesses in its clinical contentions. I welcome responses to this suggestion. Esterson (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to you adding “philosophical” as you propose – editing rather than deleting is, after all, what the guidelines explicitly encourage. Once the deletion agenda is set aside further discussion becomes a meaningful option. Almanacer (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now made the addition. Given Eagle's psychoanalytic credentials, I take it you have no objection to my adding the sentence I proposed immediately above. Esterson (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m not in favour of it after the Levy (better after MacMillan who makes a similar point) given that the guidelines suggest “segregate the cases for the two positions… Encyclopedias should not read like compressed forum threads”. qv WP:ATM But this is a matter of editorial judgement and not an objection to the content appearing - I don’t have a deletion agenda if its relevant and verifiably sourced content. I may though be inclined to add material in due course from Frosh 1998 “Psa, Science and Truth” from Freud 2000 Polity Press as well as the Fisher and Greenberg critique of Eysenck and Macmillan to rebalance the article following the succesive deletions of pro-Freud content made by PoC. Almanacer (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, permit me to correct some of your misapprehensions. There is no difference between "editing" and "deleting." Removing material from articles ("deleting") is in fact a form of editing, and it is not discouraged, but on the contrary, encouraged when the material concerned is inappropriate or excessive. Furthermore, you have no option on Wikipedia except to engage in discussion, regardless of whether or not you like or agree with other editors. You will no doubt find out the hard way that discussion cannot be dispensed with, should you resume editing articles without regard for the views of other editors. My personal opinion is that the issue of the scientific merits of psychoanalysis could and should be summed up in one or two sentences, saying simply that some authorities consider psychoanalysis scientific and others do not. Trying to rehash the entire argument in this article (in the form of a series of, "X says this...but Y, on the contrary, says that..." observations) is a serious mistake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Our interpretation of WP guidelines on Editing obviously differ, especially with respect to WP:PRESERVE and the advice given on how to edit constructively “instead of deleting text”. I disagree with you that limiting the content on the scientific merits of psychoanalysis to simply recording the existence of opposed views, without any reference to the substantive issues at stake, is appropriate coverage of an important topic. As the exchange with Esterton above demonstrates I am not, as your offensive slur claims, dispensing with discussion or disregarding the views of other editorsAlmanacer (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea that text should never be deleted from articles is stupid, and if WP:PRESERVE said that, it would be a stupid guideline and would need to be written. What it says, of course, is that it is a good idea to "Preserve appropriate content". "Appropriate" does not, and is not meant to, include content that is undue for a particular article. The details of the extremely complicated and ongoing debate over the scientific merits of psychoanalysis are certainly undue here, and the fact that they are an important topic in themselves doesn't change that. What on Earth makes you suppose that such material would be more appropriate to this article than it would be to Psychoanalysis, for example? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to PoC's criticising Almanacer for editing articles without regard for the views of others, Almanacer replied: "As the exchange with Esterton above demonstrates I am not, as your offensive slur claims, dispensing with discussion or disregarding the views of other editors."

Almanacer: Far from his comment being an offensive slur, PoC was simply making a statement of fact. Over a period of more than two months you have repeatedly posted your items/amendments on the Freud page without consulting with other editors despite the fact that the topics have been the subject of ongoing exchanges on the Talk page, and repeated urgings that you not do so. As for your citing the latest exchange with me, it is only because I made my proposals on the Talk page that we were able to have a reasonable discussion.

I would add to this that a conclusion (if such it be) to the recent dispute has only been possible because, in the interests of ending a seemingly interminable dispute, I have been prepared to concede to your insistence on giving Levy a disproportionate amount of space (compared with far more significant contributors to Freud studies). This is despite of the fact that three editors who have contributed to the most recent discussions have argued against your Levy sentences in one way or another. (See above from Formerip: "Levy's view should not, therefore, be included in the section.")

I commend another comment made by Formerip in this context: "We should focus instead on its impact, which seems fairly limited when we consider all the trees that have given their lives so that people could offer their views about Freud." Reading this a few days ago brought home to me that views I expressed previously need modifying. (And, yes Almanacer, I am prepared to change or modify previously expressed views if I see an argument that leads me to do so.) I don't need to say that there is an immense literature on Freud, and a large one specifically on the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis, and the notion that any editor should have free rein to post anything on the Freud page if it has an appropriate citation is a recipe for an ever expanding page. Given the size of the literature on Freud, some regard should be given to one or more of the following: the standing of the cited author, the range of their writings on Freud, their impact in one way or another. As PoC wrote: "Removing material from articles ("deleting") is in fact a form of editing, and it is not discouraged, but on the contrary, encouraged when the material concerned is inappropriate or excessive." This is the only way the Freud page can be kept to a reasonable size.

While I don't entirely agree with PoC on the amount of space given over to the issue of the scientific credentials of Freudian theories, I have some sympathy with his view that "Trying to rehash the entire argument in this article (in the form of a series of, "X says this...but Y, on the contrary, says that..." observations) is a serious mistake." But as we have seen, agreement on what should go into the Science section and what should be removed is not a likely prospect in the foreseeable future. Esterson (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I respect that fact that other editors may not agree with me about the precise amount of space that debates over the scientific merits of psychoanalysis should be given in this article. I don't plan on removing large amounts of content in the near future. That would certainly require prior discussion, and nor do I currently have a firm view of how the article should read instead. But it does seem that the article is unsatisfactory and over-long, and that will have to be dealt with at some stage in the future, one way or another. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)