When most people think of psychology or psychiatry they think of Sigmund Freud and the various schools of psychoanalysis. A psychoanalysis, at least in the USA, is usually the professional term given to a "shrink". Yet psychoanalysis is not a science. In fact my favourite psychoanalysis, Viktor Frankl, described the close connection between psychoanalysis and philosophy.

Psychoanalysis has been brought into a question a lot and, as a rule, scientific sceptics do not look very favourably on it:

http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html

...and yet there is the soft science of "behavioural science". Psychology and criminology have to be studied by those involved with the very hard sciences behind police forensics. Psychology definitely fascinates debunkers and sceptics as demonstrated by the likes of Michael Shermer. So what really is the deal with psychoanalysis?

From reports I have read psychoanalysis has no greater benefit than pills off the doc.

There is no evidence that it is doing anything, the patient could get better in their own time for example, the placebo effect, people stop going and are assumed to be cured.

If I can remember where I found the source I shall post,

Den

However, psychoanalysis is also tied with psychology. Even the Skeptic Dictionary concedes that Freud should be given credit for encouraging the study of psychology. Last year I read a very dry text book on "Behaviour Science" for university students and Freud's work is given respectable time.

Micki Pistorious the great serial killer tracker in South Africa is a big follower of Freud's ideas. This is no armchair psychologist either. Pistorious is credited with aided the capture of a large number of serial killers, helping to get their conviction and for training over 100 police officers in the study of serial killer behaviour.

These are points worth considering. Psychology is a "soft" science, but by being sceptics who are interested in "wrong thinking" we advocate it by default.

Very true,

Den.