Changes

::: Newton was a real scientist, Freud was not. Popper was a respected philosopher of science who lived at the same time as Freud. Popper's view tells what knowledgeable people thought of Freud while he was alive. I don't get your analogy to Newton. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Newton was a real scientist, Freud was not. Popper was a respected philosopher of science who lived at the same time as Freud. Popper's view tells what knowledgeable people thought of Freud while he was alive. I don't get your analogy to Newton. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your evidence for Freud was not a scientist is a philosopher of science.  You are appealing to the authority of a philosopher of science.  You have in the past said philosophers of science are irrelevant as an authority when dealing with science (that Freud is not a scientist is a claim about science).  Unless Popper is relevant because what philosophers of science have to say about science, he is not relevant here (what smart people think about science is even less relevant than what philosophers of science think about science).  Is what philosophers of science have to say about science relevant?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your evidence for Freud was not a scientist is a philosopher of science.  You are appealing to the authority of a philosopher of science.  You have in the past said philosophers of science are irrelevant as an authority when dealing with science (that Freud is not a scientist is a claim about science).  Unless Popper is relevant because what philosophers of science have to say about science is relevant, he is not relevant here (what smart people think about science is even less relevant than what philosophers of science think about science).  Is what philosophers of science have to say about science relevant?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)