The Scratch-Reflex dream is then to be reconstituted first of all as a
memory-reaction determined by factors of recency, frequency and intensity in
the dreamer's experience. The operation of these factors determines the
evocation of a specific context or apperception-mass, namely the
conversation in question, whose affinity with the external stimulus
(scratching) is now made evident. The course of events can be followed so
concretely as to permit the logical exclusion of other supposed
determinants; confining the explanation as stated. The principle of the
parsimony of causes is here applied. I contend that the dream is neither an
infantile nor a sexual wish-fulfilment, all plausible analogies to the
contrary notwithstanding. Should anyone wish to urge the more remote
interpretations which I first manufactured, then the burden of proof rests
with him. And no proof is conclusive that rests on mere precedent or on mere
reasoning by analogy. The only psychological proof of an interpretation is
fundamentally the ability of the interpreter to reconstitute the dream
beyond peradventure. This I propose to accomplish more in detail, showing
the dream to be a reaction to specific cues, through a process of
trial-and-error, and to a limited degree, of trial and success.