553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + +
→Popper
::::: I don't know what you are arguing about. The article says, "Freud's theories are viewed as unscientific because they lack falsifiability". That is a correct statement, and it belongs in the article. Popper is a good source to support that statement. If you dispute the statement, then tell us why and provide us with sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: I don't know what you are arguing about. The article says, "Freud's theories are viewed as unscientific because they lack falsifiability". That is a correct statement, and it belongs in the article. Popper is a good source to support that statement. If you dispute the statement, then tell us why and provide us with sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question, one which I have yet to see an answer to. I’ve tried asking it in context, to explain why I’m asking, but it seems to get lost when I try to do it that way, so let me drop the context and ask the question straight out: Are philosophers of science appropriate sources to use as support for claims about science?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)