Excerpt from: [What's so Great About Mushrooms?]
I have studied science from the point of view of a man with a catapult searching the walls of a great keep for its point of weakness, and I think, dear friends, that psychology is the place to put the pressure on.
Around the turn of the century, science was really erecting its tent, and you had the phrenologists - those were the people who felt the bumps on your head and said whether you had criminal tendencies or not - you had palmistry, homeopathy, a number of these - and psychology. All of these [...] were in furious competition to get themselves declared as "science", because they sensed that otherwise you were reduced to quackery.
The phrenologists couldn't bring it on. The homeopaths only convinced themselves. The palmists convinced not a great number of people, but the psychologists... around the mumbo jumbo of Freudian analysis they were able to claim that they had a science that described what's going on with human beings.
The truth is, I believe, that psychology, though well meaning - I don't cast aspersions on their intentions - but I think it's effectiveness is close to zero. It depends entirely on the personality of the therapist. 30% [of patients] get better, 30% get worse, and 30% stay the same. What this means is, the theories are no good. It's just that people are good, bad, or indifferent. Psychology needs tools.