ABSTRACT
The changes from a natural science to a hermeneutic science and from positivism to constructivism embody a new a metapsychology that supplants Freud's physicoenergic framework. While these changes favor a coherence rather than a correspondence theory of truth, the dichotomy between the two is often too sharply drawn. A pragmatic view in which one's theory is constructivist but in which one works as though correspondence is possible may seem to be fudging principles, but it is the necessary stance of the clinician. The consequences of this stance for research, especially systematic research, have yet to be worked out. It is not clear how hypotheses are to be tested for validity.
