Changes

=====Scientific Discourse=====Both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]] use the term '"[[science]]' " in the [[singular]], thus implying that there is a specific [[unified]], homogeneous kind of [[discourse ]] that can be called '"[[science|scientific]]'".

This [[discourse ]] begins, according to [[Lacan]], in the seventeenth century <ref>{{Ec}} p.857</ref>, with the inauguration of modern physics.<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 855</ref>.

On the one hand, he criticises modern criticizes [[science|modern science]] for ignoring the [[Symbolicsymbolic]] [[dimension ]] of [[human]] [[existence]] and thus encouraging modern man "to forget his [[subjectivity]]."<ref>{{E}} p.70</ref>.

He also compares modern [[science|modern science]] to a "fully realised [[Realparanoia]]ised paranoia," in the [[sense ]] that its totalising totalizing constructions resemble the architecture of a [[delusion]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.874</ref>

On the other hand[[Lacan]] implies that [[science|positivism]] is actually a deviation from "[[science|true science]]", these criticisms are not levelled at and his own [[model]] of [[science]] per se, but at owes more to the positivist model [[science|rationalism]] of Koyré, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to [[science|empiricism]].

=====Formalization=====In other [[words]], for [[Lacan]] implies that positivism is actually , what marks a deviation from 'true [[discourse]] as [[science|scientific]]', and his own model is a high degree of [[sciencemathematical]] [[formalization]] owes more to the rationalism of KoyrÈ, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to empiricism.

In other words, for This is what lies behind [[Lacan]], what marks a discourse as scientific is a high degree 's attempts to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]] in [[terms]] of various [[mathematical]] [[formalisationalgebra|formulae]].

This is what lies behind These [[Lacan]]'s attempts to [[formalise]] [[psychoanalytic theoryalgebra|formulae]] in terms also encapsulate a further characteristic of various [[mathematicalscience|scientific discourse]] formulae , which is that it should be transmissible.<ref>{{see [[mathematics]], [[algebra]]TV}} p. 60</ref>.

These formulae also encapsulate =====Truth=====[[Lacan]] argues that [[science]] is characterized by a further characteristic of scientific discourse, which is that it should be transmissible.<ref>[[Lacanparticular]] [[relationship]] to [[truth]], 1973a: 60</ref>.

On the one hand, it attempts to monopolize [[Lacantruth]] argues that as its exclusive property <ref>{{Ec}} p. 79</ref>; and, on the other hand, [[science]] is characterised by in fact based on a particular relationship to [[foreclosure]] of the [[concept]] of [[truth]]as [[cause]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 874</ref>.

On the one hand, it attempts =====Knowledge=====[[Science]] is also characterised by a particular relationship to monopolise [[truthknowledge]] (''[[knowledge|savoir]] as its exclusive property <ref>{{Ec}} p.79</ref>; and, on the other hand''), in that [[science]] is in fact based on a the [[foreclosureexclusion]] of any access to [[knowledge]] by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the concept of [[truthsearch]] for [[knowledge]] as to follow only the path of [[causereason]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.874831</ref>.

In [[Sciencestating]] is also characterised by a particular relationship to [[knowledge]] (''savoir''), in that [[sciencepsychoanalysis]] is based on operates only the exclusion of any access to [[knowledgesubject]] by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the search for of [[knowledgescience]] to follow only the path of reason.,<ref>{{Ec}} p.831858</ref>[[Lacan]] is arguing that [[psychoanalysis]] is not based on any appeal to an ineffable [[experience]] or flash of intuition, but on a [[process]] of reasoned dialogue, even when reason confronts its [[limit]] in [[madness]].

The modern subject is =====Human And Natural Sciences=====Although the 'subject [[distinction]] between the [[science|human sciences]] and the [[science|natural sciences]] had become quite well-established by the end of the nineteenth century, it does not [[sciencefigure]] in [[Freud]]' in the sense that this exclusively rational route to s [[knowledgework]] is now a common presupposition.

In stating that [[psychoanalysis]] operates only the subject of [[science]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.858</ref>  [[Lacan]] is arguing that [[psychoanalysis]] is not based on any appeal to an ineffable experience or flash of intuition, but on a process of reasoned dialoguethe other hand, even when reason confronts its limit in [[madness]]pays great attention to this distinction.

Although the distinction between =====Conjectural and Exact Sciences=====Whereas the human [[science|exact sciences]]s and concern the natural field of phenomena in which there is no one who uses a [[sciencesignifier]]s had become quite well-established by the end of the nineteenth century ,<ref>{{thanks to the work of DiltheyS3}} p. 186</ref>, it does not figure in the [[science|conjectural sciences]] are fundamentally different because they concern beings who inhabit the [[symbolic]] [[Freudorder]]'s work.

In 1965, however, [[Lacan]], on problematizes the other hand, pays great attention to this distinction. between [[science|conjectural]] and [[science|exact]] [[science]]s:

However, rather than talking of <blockquote>The opposition between the "human [[science|exact sciences]]s" and the "natural [[science|conjectural sciences]]s," can no longer be sustained from the [[Lacanmoment]] prefers instead when conjecture is susceptible to talk of the "conjectural an exact calculation and when exactitude is based only on a formalism which separates axioms and [[sciencelaw]]s" and the "exact of grouping [[sciencesymbol]]s." <ref>{{Ec}} p. 863</ref></blockquote>

Whereas in the last century physics provided a paradigm of exactitude for the exact [[science|exact sciences]]s concern which made the field of phenomena in which there is no one who uses a [[signifierscience|conjectural sciences]]seem sloppy by comparison,<ref>{{S3}} p.186</ref> the conjectural arrival on the [[scene]] of [[sciencestructuralism|structural]]s are fundamentally different because they concern beings who inhabit the [[symboliclinguistics]] redressed the imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the [[orderscience|conjectural sciences]].

In 1965, however, [[Lacan]] problematises differs from [[Freud]] by importing [[concepts]] mainly from the distinction between conjectural "[[science]]s of subjectivity," and exact by aligning [[psychoanalytic theory]] with these rather than with the [[science|natural sciences]]s:.

The opposition between the exact [[scienceLacan]]s and the conjectural argues that this paradigm shift is in fact implicit in [[scienceFreud]]'s can no longer be sustained own reformulations of the concepts that he borrowed from the moment when conjecture is susceptible to an exact calculation and when exactitude is based only on a formalism which separates axioms and [[lawscience|natural sciences]]s of grouping [[symbol]]s.<ref>{{Ec}} p.863</ref>

Whereas in the last century physics provided a paradigm of exactitude for the exact =====Structural Linguistics=====In other words, whenever [[Freud]] borrowed concepts from [[sciencebiology]]s he reformulated those concepts so radically that he created a totally new paradigm which made the conjectural was quite [[sciencealien]]s seem sloppy by comparison, the arrival on the scene of structural linguistics redressed the imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the conjectural to its [[sciencebiological]]sorigins.

When Thus, according to [[Lacan]], [[Freud]] borrowed terms from other anticipated the findings of modern [[structural]] [[sciencelinguists]]s, it was always from the natural such as [[scienceSaussure]]s because these were the only , and his work can be better [[scienceunderstood]]s around in the light of these [[Freudlinguistics|linguistic concepts]]'s day that provided a model of rigorous investigation and thought.

=====Is Psychoanalysis a Science?=====[[LacanFreud]] differs from was quite [[Freudexplicit]] by importing concepts mainly from in affirming the "[[science|scientific status]]s of subjectivity," and by aligning [[psychoanalytic theory]] with these rather than with the [[natural]] [[sciencepsychoanalysis]]s. :

<blockquote>"While it was originally the [[name]] of a particular therapeutic method [...] it has now also become the name of a [[Lacanscience]] argues that this paradigm shift is in fact implicit in - the [[Freudscience]]'s own reformulations of the concepts that he borrowed from the [[naturalunconscious]] [[mental]] [[scienceprocesses]]s."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|An Autobiographical Study]]'', 1925a: [[SE]] XX, 70</ref></blockquote>

In other words, whenever <blockquote>"Every [[science]] is based on observations and experiences arrived at through the medium of our [[psychical]] [[Freudapparatus]] borrowed concepts from . But since our [[biologyscience]] he reformulated those concepts so radically has as its subject that he created a totally new paradigm which was quite alien to its apparatus itself, the analogy ends here."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|An Outline of Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1940a [1938]: [[biologicalSE]] origins. XXIII, 159</ref></blockquote>

Thus, according to [[=====Jacques Lacan]], =====The question of the status of [[Freudpsychoanalysis]] anticipated the findings of modern structural linguists such as and its relationship with other disciplines is also one to which [[SaussureLacan]], and his work can be better understood in the light of these linguistic conceptsdevotes much attention.

Is psychoanalysis a [[science]]? However, after 1950 [[FreudLacan]] was quite explicit in affirming the scientific status of psychoanalysis: 'While it was originally the name of a particular therapeutic method,' he wrote in 1924, 'it has now also become s attitude to the name of a question becomes much more [[sciencecomplex]] - the [[science]] of unconscious mental processes' <ref>{{[[Freud]], 1925a: SE XX, 70</ref>.

=====Religion=====However, he also insisted on in the unique character of psychoanalysis that sets it apart from the other opposition [[science]]s; 'Every versus [[sciencereligion]] is based on observations and experiences arrived at through the medium of our psychical apparatus. But since our , [[scienceLacan]] has as its subject that apparatus itself, the analogy ends here' <ref>{{follows [[Freud]], 1940a: SE XXIII, 159</ref>.The question of the status of psychoanalysis and its relationship with other disciplines is also one to which in arguing that [[Lacanpsychoanalysis]] devotes much attention. In his pre-war writings, psycho- analysis is seen unreservedly has more in scientific terms <ref>{{e.g. common with [[Lacanscience|scientific discourse]], 1936</ref>. However, after 1950 than [[Lacanreligion|religious discourse]]'s attitude to the question becomes much more complex.:

In 1953, he states that in <blockquote>"Psychoanalysis is not a religion. It proceeds from the opposition same status as [[science]] versus [[art]], psychoanalysis can be located on the side of art, on condition that the term 'art' is understood in the sense in which it was used in the Middle Ages, when the 'liberal arts' included arithmetic, geometry, music and grammar itself."<ref>{{[[Lacan]]: 1953b: 224S11}} p. 265</ref>.</blockquote>

However=====Scientific Status=====If, in the opposition as [[Lacan]] argues, a [[science]] versus religionis only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry, <ref>[[Lacan]] follows argues that [[Freudpsychoanalysis]] in arguing that psychoanalysis has more in common actually set [[psychology]] on a scientific footing by providing it with scientific discourse than religious discourse: 'psychoanalysis is not a religionproper object of enquiry -- the [[imago]]; <ref>{{L}} "[[Work of Jacques Lacan|Propos sur la causalité psychique]]", in {{E}} [1946]. pp. 151-93</ref>; {{Ec}} p. It proceeds from 188</ref> then, when in 1965 he isolates the same status ''[[objet petit a]]'' as the [[object]] of [[psychoanalysis]], he is in effect claiming a [[science|scientific status]]for [[psychoanalysis]] itself .<ref>{{Sl1, 265Ec}} p. 863</ref>.

IfHowever, as from this point on [[Lacan]] argues, a comes increasingly to question this view of [[sciencepsychoanalysis]] is only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry <ref>{{see a [[Lacanscience]], 1946, where he argues that psychoanalysis has actually set psychology on a scientific footing by providing it with a proper object of enquiry - the imago - Ec, 188</ref>, then, when in 1965 he isolates the objet petit a as the object of psychoanalysis, he is in effect claiming a scientific status for psychoanalysis <ref>{{Ec, 863</ref>.

However, from this point on [[Lacan]] comes increasingly to question this view of psychoanalysis as a [[science]]. In the same year he states that [[psychoanalysis ]] is not a [[science]] but a "practice" ('practice' <ref>{{pratique</ref> '') with a '"[[science|scientific vocation' ]]",<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 863</ref>, though in the same year he also speaks of 'the psychoanalytic [[science|psychoanalytic science]]' ."<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 876</ref>. By 1977 he has become more categorical:

Psychoanalysis is not a [[science]]. It By 1977 he has no scientific status - it merely waits and hopes for it. Psychoanalysis is a delusion - a delusion which is expected to produce a [[science]]. . . . It is a scientific delusion, but this doesn't mean that analytic practice will ever produce a [[science]]. <ref>{{[[Lacan]], 1976-7; seminar of 11 January 1977; Ornicar?, 14become more categorical: 4</ref>

However<blockquote>Psychoanalysis is not a [[science]]. It has no scientific status - it merely waits and hopes for it. Psychoanalysis is a delusion - a delusion which is expected to produce a [[science]]. . . . It is a scientific delusion, even when but this doesn't mean that [[analytic]] practice will ever produce a [[Lacanscience]] makes such statements. <ref>{{L}} ''[[Seminar XXIV| Le Séminaire. Livre XXIV. L'insu que sait de l'une bévue s'aile à mourre, 1976-77'', he never abandons the project of formalising psychoanalytic theory published in linguistic and mathematical terms. Indeed''Ornicar?'', nos 12-18, the tension between the scientific formalism of the MATHEME and the semantic profusion of lalangue constitutes one of the most interesting features 1977-9; [[Seminar]] of 11 January 1977; ''[[LacanOrnicar?]]'s later work.', 14: 4</ref></blockquote>

Indeed, the tension between the [[science|scientific formalism]] of the [[matheme]], 1, 7-8, 10-11, 19, 34, 39-40, 47, 77, 86, 151, 163, 225-6, 231, 234, 245-6, 259, * 264, 274, astrology and astronomy 152, chemistry 9, chinese astronomy 151-2, * economics, 210, ethology, animal, 279, genetics 151, human the semantic profusion of ''[[sciencelalangue]]s, 7, 20, 43, 223, * physics, 10, 163, physilogy, 163,'' constitutes one of the most interesting features of [[Seminar XILacan]]'s later work.

 [[Category:scienceScience]]