Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To use Pocket to save bookmarks to PEP-Web articles…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Pocket (formerly “Read-it-later”) is an excellent third-party plugin to browsers for saving bookmarks to PEP-Web pages, and categorizing them with tags.

To save a bookmark to a PEP-Web Article:

  • Use the plugin to “Save to Pocket”
  • The article referential information is stored in Pocket, but not the content. Basically, it is a Bookmark only system.
  • You can add tags to categorize the bookmark to the article or book section.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Cooper, A.M. (1993). Discussion: On Empirical Research. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 41S(Supplement):381-392.

(1993). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41S(Supplement):381-392

Discussion: On Empirical Research

Arnold M. Cooper, M.D.

Stephen P. Tobin and Dr. Arnold M. Cooper Professor Emeritus in Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center; Training and Supervising Analyst, Columbia University Psychoanalytic Center for Training and Research.

PSYCHOANALYSTS HAVE FOR SOME time comfortably debated the question of whether psychoanalysis is science or hermeneutics. The arguments on both sides have been stated clearly and frequently, and the controversy has been a useful one in helping us to understand the dimensions of psychoanalysis. However, to the extent that psychoanalysis lays claim to being a method of treatment, we are, for better or worse, drawn into the orbit of science, and we cannot then escape the obligations of empirical research. As long as we develop practitioners who are members of a profession and charge for their services, it is incumbent upon us to study what we do and how we affect our patients. As most of psychiatry has embarked on brain studies, psychoanalysts and our collaborators in the psychotherapies retain responsibility for the continuing study of mental processes.

Furthermore, while some psychoanalysts still believe that our activity is separate from, and unrelated to, advances in psychiatry, most analysts have come to appreciate that there are significant interactions between psychiatric empirical research and psychoanalysis that profoundly affect how we think about and practice our profession. It was not so long ago that psychoanalysts undertook to provide complete explanations of ticks, phobias, depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior, etc. Today we are quite aware that some of our explanations were simply wrong, while others were not wrong, but incomplete.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.