Your downvote gripes(a quick check of my profile would show I'm not even capable) are almost as obnoxious as your willful misinterpretation of my my original comment.
I never said Milgram's work was beyond reproach, just that I found the unjustified spin of the original article annoying. Fromm is also making more of a philosophical argument against experimental psychology as a whole. He references Milgram's experiment as "one of the most highly regarded experiments in the field of aggression". I'm not sure why you think it's a biting criticism.
I find something deeply annoying about journalists using pop-psychology to criticize real psychology.
Yes, you can probably poke some holes in his quantitative interpretation of obedience (it's hard to condense human dialogue/action into a single metric), but it was good fundamental psychology that warranted repetition/variation.
Published science often contains a limited narrative because even scientists have trouble reading through many pages of technical detail without proper motivation. To suggest that narrative makes Milgram's work art rather than science is an unjustified insult.
I never said Milgram's work was beyond reproach, just that I found the unjustified spin of the original article annoying. Fromm is also making more of a philosophical argument against experimental psychology as a whole. He references Milgram's experiment as "one of the most highly regarded experiments in the field of aggression". I'm not sure why you think it's a biting criticism.