Freud; on science and being scientific

There are many critics on Freudian psychoanalysis. One of the major critics was made by Popper. He claimed that Psychoanalysis is pseudo-science because of the lack of fasifiability in psychoanalytic theory. This post is not about providing a reply to Popper’s critics but it is about how Freud looks at ‘being scientific’.

In my point of view it may be true if we say that Psychoanalysis is not scientific but I think it is an effort through ‘being scientific’. It should be reminded that we shall not look at science as an ideology and it is not a wise manner if we totally abandon what we don’t perceive as science.

An idea or theory that at present time is not scientific may become scientific one day.

A theory / approach or study which we may perceive it as science at present time may be considered as non-scientific with future coming standards.

And Now what Freud says about being scientific:

We have often heard it maintained that sciences should be built up on clear and sharply defined basic concepts. In actual fact no science, not even the most exact, begins with such definitions. The true beginning of scientific activity consists rather in describing phenomena and then in proceeding to group, classify and correlate them. Even at the stage of description it is not possible to avoid applying certain abstract ideas to the material in hand, ideas derived from somewhere or other but certainly not from the new observations alone. Such ideas which will later become the basic concepts of the science are still more indispensable as the material is further worked over. They must at first necessarily possess some degree of indefiniteness; there can be no question of any clear delimitation of their content. So long as they remain in this condition, we come to an understanding about their meaning by making repeated references to the material of observation from which they appear to have been derived, but upon which, in fact, they have been imposed. Thus, strictly speaking, they are in the nature of conventions – although everything depends on their not being arbitrarily chosen but determined by their having significant relations to the empirical material, relations that we seem to sense before we can clearly recognize and demonstrate them. It is only after more thorough investigation of the field of observation that we are able to formulate its basic scientific concepts with increased precision, and progressively so to modify them that they become serviceable and consistent over a wide area. Then, indeed, the time may have come to confine them in definitions. The advance of knowledge, however, does not tolerate any rigidity even in definitions. Physics furnishes an excellent illustration of the way in which even ‘basic concepts’ that have been established in the form of definitions are constantly being altered in their content.

–  Instincts And Their Vicissitudes (1915)


Autism; what’s beneath the surface?

According to my knowledge, ASD mainly is defined based on the what is appeared from outside. They have been evaluated with their deviations from outer “normal” life. It is said that they could not communicate, have poor pair bonding, have repetitive behavior , etc. All of these definitions are made by and outside observation.

I think an important question is how these people with autism feel and look at the world. I don’t know if one had replied to it and I couldn’t find any source telling me about their internal world. Actually this knowledge is only achievable through a wise and careful psycho + analysis. analysis is important. For this we shall go beneath the surface. deeply.

In a previous post I told that there is a very strong border between the world of people with ASD and others. They are judged and defined from an outer look. Also they are not able to effectively show their world to others. there are two planet with creatures with different languages. This gap could be reduces by applying a wise psycho analysis. Then finding cure and solution would be easier.

P.S.1: I talked about wise psycho analysis. psycho analysis is not talk therapy (as it is misunderstood today). It is a deep analysis of mind. Freudian psycho analysis nowadays is consider as out dated + non scientific approach, but It is very soon to put it aside.

P.S.2: In a previous post I talked about an state of mind as “unbearable lightness” as an state of feeling which people with autism feel often. This could be touched through analysis by people with high functioning autism. This state is very escapee and transient in our conscious mind but its role is very effective for function of mind system.

“Future” from the window of autism society: Hope or disappointment?

The first time I heard about a disorder called as “autism” it grabbed my attention. I searched about it and I followed autism society in western countries (I mean people with autism, families and activists) through social networks and web. Autism society has made huge movements to introduce autism to the world and to help people with autism in many ways. On the other hand there are many academic efforts to understand the problem. But by considering all of these efforts; how autism society looks to future? Do they have hope that someday soon these efforts could solve the problem of autism?

I’m an observer far from the western society. I’m looking from the outside to learn and to gain new information. My feeling is that there is more disappointment than hope for future in autism society. It seems to me that nobody expects to find a cure. Scientific efforts now could not give a powerful signal to society that the matter is (or will be) known or everything is under the control. I think that the debate about the relation of vaccine and autism is a reaction to show this distrust. I don’t know; may my judgment and feeling is wrong but it seems to me that there is a kind of disappointment in the society.