PubMed · 11618381
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R T Steinbock. 1996. Annotated bibliography.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11618381/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The story recounted by Jeffrey M. Masson of the medical community's outraged response to the seduction theory is treated as historical fact in some of the recent literature on Freud's early psychoanalytic experiences. In this article the evidence adduced by Masson in The Assault on Truth (1984) to buttress his account of Freud's supposed ostracism is critically examined. It is concluded that this evidence fails to substantiate Masson's version of events, that there is abundant evidence that refutes it, and that he has ignored the historical research that demonstrates that the notion that Freud's early psychoanalytic writings received an irrationally hostile reception is a myth.
This introduction precedes the four papers given in October 2000 in Copenhagen on analysing problems in the history of the neurosciences. The term historiography can be defined in different ways but means the study, and not simply the writing, of history. Although it goes back two millennia, it is a rapidly developing field as illustrated by the subsequent contributions.
The purpose of this paper is to suggest that subtle and essential uncertainties in language determine the limits of science and history, and thereby define the boundaries of research in the history of science. Historical research, in the strict sense of history as opposed to prehistory, begins with the examination of written records. There is a host of problems in the interpretation of the historical record, but underlying all of these is the simply stated yet complex question of the meaning of words in historical documents. Since this is where the practice of history begins, this problem delimits the boundaries of historical knowledge. In this paper, I will examine structural ambiguities in the meaning of words, explain how they arise, and provide independent evidence for the validity of the analysis.