Inquiry 7 (1-4):80 – 98 (1964)
|Abstract||Mr. B. A. Farrell has argued that psychoanalysis is refutable, without clarifying different senses of 'refutable'. Once this clarification is done and the relevant literature examined, however, it is seen that psychoanalysis is not refutable in several important senses of 'refutable', although it is refutable in a sense that is quite uninteresting|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Herman Westerink (2012). The Heart of Man's Desire: Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Early Reformation Thought. Routledge.
Michael Rustin (2001). Reason and Unreason: Psychoanalysis, Science , and Politics. Wesleyan University Press.
Howard S. Ruttenberg (1984). Book Review:The Standing of Psychoanalysis. B. A. Farrell. [REVIEW] Ethics 94 (2):350-.
Julia Borossa & Ivan Ward (eds.) (2009). Psychoanalysis, Fascism, and Fundamentalism. Edinburgh University Press.
Michael Lavin (1984). Book Review:The Standing of Psychoanalysis B. A. Farrell. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 51 (1):177-.
Sonu Shamdasani & Michael Münchow (eds.) (1994). Speculations After Freud: Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Culture. Routledge.
William J. Massicotte, A Philosophical Examination of Recent Clinical and Theoretical Psychoanalysis.
B. A. Farrell (1964). A Note on Dr. Martin's Senses of 'Refutable'. Inquiry 7 (1-4):99-103.
Sebastian Gardner (2000). Psychoanalysis and the Personal/Sub-Personal Distinction. Philosophical Explorations 3 (1):96-119.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-03-05
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?