Has Neuroscience Debunked Freudianism?
No. Because it can't. Philip Ball makes a good point here: "It is currently fashionable, for example, to claim that neuroscience has debunked Freudianism. But it’s not even clear what this could possibly mean. Freud’s claims that his ideas were scientific are apt to irritate scientists today partly because they don’t recognise how differently that word was used in the late 19th century, when novelists like Emile Zola could claim that they were applying the scientific method to literature. More to the point, Freud’s identification of an unconscious world where primitive impulses raged was really of cultural rather than scientific import. One could argue, if one feels inclined, that the identification of “primitive” instinctive areas of the brain such as the basal ganglia (which controls voluntary motor movements, procedural learning and routine behaviours), as well as the modern understanding of how childhood experiences affect the brain’s architecture, in fact offer some scientific validation of Freud. But the broader point is that there was never going to be any real value in seeking a neuro-anatomical correlate of the Freudian ego, superego and id. As (admittedly somewhat crude) metaphors for our conflicting impulses and inclinations, they still make sense—as much sense as concepts like love, jealousy and disgust (which are sure to have complex and variable neural mappings)." [Emphasis added.] - The neuromyths of the classroom - Philip Ball Not central to the issue, but I disagree about the basal ganglia! As my advisor likes to say (only half-jokingly): the cerebral cortex is just packing material to protect the basal ganglia, where the important stuff happens. :)
