JUNG AND THE QUESTION OF SCIENCE

In this book, eight scholars contribute their thoughts on Carl Gustav Jung's work and whether or not it can be classified as science. The authors are Joe Cambray, Terence Dawson, Peter T Dunlop, Byron J Gaist, Leslie Gardner, Mark Saban, Robert A Segal and Raya A Jones who is also the editor of the book. Jung always described himself as a scientist and his work as scientific. As the book points out, the English word science has a slightly more limited meaning than the German word Wissenschaft. This German word can be directly translated into the Swedish word vetenskap that means the development of hitherto unknown objective knowledge with systematic methods. The English word science that can be defined as: a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Given that the English definition also includes 'testable explanations' it is understandable that Jung's view of science has been questioned, in particular by Anglo-Saxon scholars. Although Jung was methodical in his research his conclusions were not always based on empirical facts in the way required in the Anglo-Saxon world. Jung often arrived at his conclusion from meditating on his own experiences, and comparing them to his patients' experiences, rather than objectively drawing his conclusions from case histories. Whether or not this can be regarded as science in the Anglo-Saxon world is a question that can be discussed in depth and has been over the years. This book illuminates the problem with a spectrum of views, both for and against. The overall conclusion is that Jung has, at least, contributed to the understanding of human psyche, in particular by adding the aspects of emotions and dreams to psychological research. Above all perhaps, Jung's unorthodox research methods illustrated the problems that emotions and personal beliefs bring to the field of psychological research. Although it may not be good science as such, to ignore emotions and beliefs, as many scientists have attempted over the years, will never fully reflect the human psyche. Even if it makes the results messy and questionable from a scientific point of view, accepting the fact that human beings are guided by emotions, dreams and beliefs is necessary if we want to reveal the full picture, although it makes us far less predictable as study objects. Modern views in consciousness studies clearly point in this direction. Another 'side-effect' of drawing a strict line between scientific and non-scientific studies is that it has open up to a wide range of self-styled gurus teaching in a very popular way and attracting many followers. This is not to say that they have a similar empirical base from which they draw their wisdom as Jung had. Even Jung is often ascribed a guru status by his followers, meaning that his words should not be questioned. As a member of a Jungian circle for many years with many questions to ask about Jung's conclusions, I often found this to be the case. My personal hope is therefore that the question of the scientific status of Jung's research will spill over to a wider discussion of where to draw the line regarding scientific/nonscientific research. A discussion that is, perhaps, bound to emerge given the constantly growing understanding of the human psyche that modern research is producing.