On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Thomas Seay wrote:
>
> Furthermore, Gary Null may be a quack, may have no
> proper research, triple blind studies to support his
> evidence, but then I am always surprized that there
> are intellectuals who still accept Freud as
> scientific, even though all studies that I have seen
> prove his therapeutic method to be an utter failure.
>
> -Thomas
Back up there, dude: the evaluation research on psychoanalysis and other forms of "talk" therapy is quite clear on this point. These types of therapy are generally effective, and in some studies are even more effective than the much hyped drug therapies like SSRIs. I agree with your premise: let's gather good, solid data and evaluate theories based on their consistency with the data. I also agree Freud was not a scientist. However, an honest evaluation of the relevant data does not support your claim that Freudian therapy is "an utter failure".
Miles