Causation vs. causal explanation: a response to Axmacher

  • Galgut E
Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Comments on the article by Nikolai Axmacher (see record 2013-16464-001). Dr. Nikolai Axmacher raises and responds to three arguments that claim that psychoanalytic explanations and causal explanations in the neurological sciences are mutually inconsistent. These arguments, he claims, are raised by many opponents of neuropsychoanalysis, who argue that psychoanalytic explanations, because they are hermeneutic in character, cannot be consistent with causal explanations in the sciences. Axmacher disputes these arguments, and attempts to show that the apparent differences between hermeneutical and causal explanations are merely apparent; he thereby hopes to defend "the neuropsychoanalytic endeavor". Galgut examines Axmacher's responses to the three arguments he raises; Galgut shall argue that two of them are indeed insufficient to raise concerns about the neuropsychoanalytic project, but one of the arguments does raise concerns that Axmacher's responses do not consider. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)




Galgut, E. (2014). Causation vs. causal explanation: a response to Axmacher. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free