1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + +
no edit summary
:If Popper isn't a good source on what is or is not science I'm not sure who would be. Some of the end of this article is a bit of a stretch, at least the part about no experiments showing any merit of his work. There are many studies showing that psychoanalysis can be a useful treatment. But that has little to do with Freud's ideas about psychosexual stages or id/ego/superego. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:If Popper isn't a good source on what is or is not science I'm not sure who would be. Some of the end of this article is a bit of a stretch, at least the part about no experiments showing any merit of his work. There are many studies showing that psychoanalysis can be a useful treatment. But that has little to do with Freud's ideas about psychosexual stages or id/ego/superego. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::I tried cleaning it up a bit to reflect reality. Popper is defiantly a worthy source for the discussion of what is and is not science. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)