May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:01 AM Page 18

[THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE M A S S IMO P IGL I U C CI Massimo Pigliucci is professor of at the City University of New York–Lehman College, a fellow of the American Association for the Advance ment of Science, and author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. His essays can be found at www.rationallyspeaking.org.

Psychoanalysis and Social Constructivism

here seems to be an emergent con- theories of were correct rather for the same underlying socio- sensus in about the nature of science. They then logical reasons that have to do with the Tthat Freudian has turn around and use this suggestion as social structure of science, particularly been degraded to the status of pseudo- an indirect critique of the social con- with the distribution of power within science—just as suggested structivist program in the soci- that structure. when he starting writing about the “de- ology of science. Social constructivism isn’t taken se- marcation problem,” the question of Social constructivism is the idea that riously either by scientists themselves or what separates science from non- science is, in a strong sense, a social ac- by philosophers of science, and for good science, at the beginning of the twenti- tivity that is “constructed” by its mem- reasons. Boudry and Buekens quote eth century. (Popper’s other example of ber participants—that is, the scientists. André Kukla as pointing out that the was Marxist theorizing In a weak sense this is obvious: science field is replete with “reverse switch - about .) Indeed, recently news- is indeed a social activity engaged in by eroos”: “[You] put forth a strong version papers in both England and the United a certain type of human being. But in of the hypothesis [about how science States commented on the departure of the strong sense this amounts to the works], and when it gets into trouble, Frank Cioffi, one of the leading critics claim, as sociologist Harry Collins in- you retreat to a weaker version, pre- of Freud within philosophy of science. famously put it, that “the natural world tending that it was the weaker thesis A colleague of mine, Maarten Bou- in no way constrains what is believed to that you had in mind all along.” dry at the University of Ghent (Bel- be.” As another champion of social con- But, argue Boudry and Buekens, gium), has recently added an interesting structivism, David Bloor, put it, “[The Freudian psychoanalysis does indeed fit twist to the status of Freudian psycho- of scientific knowledge is] the description of “science” given by social analysis in a paper he cowrote with Filip symmetrical in its style of explanation. constructivists. The above-mentioned Buekens that was published in the jour- The same types of cause would explain, Cioffi, for instance, pointed out that nal Theoria in 2011. Boudry and say, true and false beliefs.” In other Freud (and his followers and eventual ri- Buekens have argued that psychoanaly- words, scientific theories are accepted vals) didn’t seem to be aware of the fact sis provides a good model of what sci- or rejected not because they do or do that he was interpreting evidence refuting ence would be like if social constructivist not match the empirical evidence, but his theory as yet another instance of con- firmation of the theory. For instance, Freud thought that his patients had an (obviously unconscious) desire to see his theories fail, which would naturally ac- count for the patients sometimes behav- Freud was winning regardless of the evidence: ing in ways contrary to what the theory if the latter confirmed the theory, good; would predict. In essence, Freud was win- ning regardless of the evidence: if the lat- if it didn’t, it was the result of his patients’ ter confirmed the theory, good; if it didn’t, unconscious resistance—also “predicted” by the theory! it was the result of his patients’ uncon- scious resistance—also “predicted” by the theory! This isn’t very different from psy- chics who explain the failure of controlled experiments on their alleged abilities by invoking a negative effect on psi “energy” caused by the proximity of skeptics.

18 Volume 36 Issue 3 | Skeptical Inquirer May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:01 AM Page 19

Boudry and Buekens also note that because the very idea of a Freudian- tonian to relativistic physics. It wasn’t critics like Cioffi and several others type mental landscape is a (extremely the result of new empirical discoveries have demonstrated that it is pretty flexible) figment of Freud’s (and his or theoretical insights but more obvi- much impossible to pin down any or- colleagues’) imagination. Collins’s com- ously the outcome of changed cultural thodox or standard theory of psycho- ment about theories being uncon- sensibilities. analysis distinct from an array of “im- strained by the natural world—while munizing strategies” concocted to twist absurd in the case of actual science— Ironically, some psychoanalysts have uncooperative evidence into supporting fits psychoanalysis (and any other pseu- themselves embraced social construc- the psychoanalyst’s claim. Again, this is doscience) perfectly well. tivism, perhaps (unconsciously?) aware what one typically observes in propo- But, one might object, psychoanaly- that the sociological doctrine, if extended nents of pseudoscience, from parapsy- sis has made progress. For instance, the to real science, would provide a perfect chology to UFOlogy, from creationism Freudian concept of penis envy was shield for the respectability of their spec- to astrology. gradually abandoned during the second ulations (hey, scientists do it too!). In the Boudry and Beuekens’ conclusion is half of the twentieth century, to be end, constructivist sociologists of science that critics of psychoanalysis have ex- re placed by new concepts like “breast would do much better in aiming their posed the fact that the theory is, indeed, envy” and “vagina envy” (I kid you not) a social construction of psychoanalysts in a number of psychoanalytical schools. tools at pseudoscience, all the while rec- themselves. There are no facts of the As Boudry and Buekens point out, ognizing that science is a very different matter to be discovered about how the however, this change is not at all anal- kind of beast, one for which the natural Freudian mental landscape works, ogous to, say, the transition from New- world does a lot of the “constraining.” n

Skeptical Inquirer | May/June 2012 19