arrived at on the field of observation and research, and nowhere else. The opponents of psychoanalysis with certain honorable exceptions, display rather ludicrously a somewhat pitifully inadequate realization of the situation. Although the psychoanalytic school could unfortunately learn nothing from their critics, as the criticism took no notice of its investigations, and although it could not get any useful hints, because the psychoanalytic method of investigation was, and still is unknown to these critics, it remains a serious duty for our school to explain thoroughly the contrast between the existing conceptions. It is not our endeavor to put forward a paradoxical theory contradicting all existing theories, but rather to introduce a certain category of new observations into science. Therefore we regard it as a duty to do whatever we can to promote agreement. It is true, we must renounce all hope of obtaining the approval of those who blindly oppose us, but we do hope to come to an understanding with scientific men. This will be my endeavor now in attempting to sketch the further intellectual development of the psychoanalytic conception, so far as the so-called sexual theory of the neuroses is concerned. Objections to the Sexual Hypothesis As I said, the finding of precocious sexual phantasies, which seemed the source of the neurosis, forced Freud to the view of a highly developed sexuality in infancy. As you know, the reality of this observation has been contested by many, who maintain that crude error, that narrow-minded delusion, misled Freud and his whole school, alike in Europe and in America, so that the Freudians saw things that never existed. They regarded them as people in the grip of an intellectual epidemic. I have to admit that I possess no way of defending myself against criticism of this kind. The only thing I can do is to refer to my own work, asking thoughtful persons if they discover there any clear indications of madness. Moreover, I must maintain that science has no right to start with the idea that certain facts do not exist. At the most one can say: “This seems very improbable—we want still more proofs and more research.” This is also our reply to the objection: “It is impossible to discover anything trustworthy by the psychoanalytic method, as this method is practically absurd.” No one believed in Galileo’s telescope, and Columbus discovered America on a false hypothesis. The psychoanalytic method may be full of errors, but this should not prevent its use. Many chronological and medical observations have been made with inadequate instruments. We must regard the objections to the method as pretexts until our opponents come to grip with the facts. It is there a decision must be reached—not by wordy warfare.