Is psychoanalysis a science? An answer in light of scientific pluralism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2024.v14.1353Keywords:
demarcation problem, epistemology, philosophy of science, scientific pluralism, mental health, science, psychoanalysisAbstract
This paper explores the longstanding debate on whether psychoanalysis qualifies as a science. Grounded in the Brazilian context, where recent publications have revived the debate, I examine the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science, highlighting how traditional criteria for defining scientific knowledge may exclude epistemically fruitful practices, such as psychoanalysis. Drawing on the perspectives of scientific pluralism, I argue for a more inclusive understanding of science, where diverse methods and epistemological approaches are recognized as legitimate contributions to addressing complex phenomena such as mental health. Ultimately, the rigid application of demarcation criteria can obscure the value of psychoanalysis, whereas scientific pluralism offers a pathway for integrating it into broader scientific discourse.Downloads
Metrics
References
Pasternak N, Orsi C. Que bobagem!: Pseudociências e outros absurdos que não merecem ser levados a sério. São Paulo: Contexto; 2023
Laudan L. The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Cohen S, Laudan L, editors. Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1983. p.111-127
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6
Albuquerque UP, Ludwig D, Feitosa IS, Moura JMB, Gonçalves PHS, Silva RH, Silva TC, Gonçalves-Souza T, Ferreira Júnior WS. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into academic research at local and global scales. Reg Environ Change. 2021;21(1):1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01774-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01774-2
Leonardi J. A neurociência confirma a psicanálise? Revista Questão de Ciência. 2024. https://www.revistaquestaodeciencia.com.br/artigo/2024/08/28/neu rociencia-confirma-psicanalise
Archibald JD, Fastovsky DE. (2012). Dinosaur extinction. In: Weishampel D, editor. The Dinosauria. Oakland, CA: University of California Press; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520242098.003.0033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520242098.003.0033
Ludwig D, El-Hani CN, Gatti F, Kendig c, Kramm M, Neco L, Nieves Delgado A, Poliseli L, Renck V, Ressiore CA, Galindo LR, Rickard TL, De La Rosa G, Turska JJ, Vergara-Silva F, Wilson RA Transdisciplinary philosophy of science: meeting the challenge of indigenous expertise. Philosophy of Science. 2023:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.127
Ludwig D, Ruphy S. Scientific pluralism. In: Zalta EN,Nodelman U, editors. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition); 2024. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/scientific-pluralism/
Feyerabend P. Against method. New York: New Left Books; 1975.
Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
Oliveira ÉAM. Por que a psicanálise não é uma pseudociência? Sobre as novas bases epistemológicas da psicanálise. Debates em Psiquiatria. 2022;12:1-19. https://revistardp.org.br/revista/article/view/283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2022.v12.283
Medeiros RHA. A psicanálise não é uma ciência. Mas, quem se importa? Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão. 1998;18(3):22-27. https://doi.org/10.1590/S141498931998000300004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98931998000300004
Prudente RCAC, Ribeiro MAC. Psicanálise e ciência. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão. 2005;25(1):58–69. https://doi.org/10.1590/S141498932005000100006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932005000100006
Ludwig D. Personal communication. 2024.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Debates em Psiquiatria allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) - Debates em Psiquiatria is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
