I Dislike Sigmud Freud

[Jovialis]

His work is not based in science. His ideas of sexuality, and gender are disgusting, nonsensical, and even dangerous. Still there's people that try to champion his ideas. The individual that wrote this article tried to shoehorn discoveries in neuroscience and genetics, to fit some of Freud's work. This is no different from people with personal agendas trying to shoehorn nationalistic or racist ideas to recent discoveries, imo. Or someone siting Nostradamus as a means to interpret current events. The author is trying to grasp at straws in an effort to validate baseless-ideas that they want to be true.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...d-or-muddle/201003/who-s-afraid-sigmund-freud

 

[Ygorcs]

Sigmund Freud was just a pioneer of a new science previously totally ignored by thinkers. He was bound to make a lot of mistakes, but still that does not diminish his historic and intellectual relevance for its time and for opening up an entire new field of scientific and philosophical observation.

Also, I don't think you or anyone should apply the constraints and limits of empirical sciences (e.g. biological science) onto social sciences. They're not entirely empirical and get closer to the patterns of philosophy than those strictly based on the results of material experiments. Many of the subjects studied by psychology can't be totally put unto empirical observation, so you need more than that to make this science advance.

Mistakes are the necessary step for any development of a science. That's why after Popper we've basically defined that a science is a science if it has falseability.

 

[Jovialis]

Sigmund Freud was just a pioneer of a new science previously totally ignored by thinkers. He was bound to make a lot of mistakes, but still that does not diminish his historic and intellectual relevance for its time and for opening up an entire new field of scientific and philosophical observation.

Also, I don't think you or anyone should apply the constraints and limits of empirical sciences (e.g. biological science) onto social sciences. They're not entirely empirical and get closer to the patterns of philosophy than those strictly based on the results of material experiments. Many of the subjects studied by psychology can't be totally put unto empirical observation, so you need more than that to make this science advance.

Mistakes are the necessary step for any development of a science. That's why after Popper we've basically defined that a science is a science if it has falseability.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree, psychoanalysis is an insufficient means for individuals to assess their problems. I take exception to the idea that this school of thought is anything but pure fantasy. In the in understanding human psychology, we should in fact be constrained to empirical evidence that we can obtain from modern genetics and neuroscience. It would be like using 19^th century anthropology over modern genetics in trying to understand human prehistory and population movements. You are free to disagree, but social science should have its feet put to the fire by the demands of empirical evidence imo

I particularly had an issue with the blog I had linked in the original thread because it attempts to breath new life into a completely outmoded idea by applying modern science to it. This is a practice I've seen by individuals desperately trying to validate false beliefs that appeal to them.

It sort of reminds me of this painfully absurd news article I read: http://bpnews.net/50147/ancient-dna-said-to-support-bibles-babel-account