Changes

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I am no advocate of Freud, and if you note above, I am the one who supplied the reference which is not being used selectively in the article to support the contention that Freud lied. The point is well made above that this may be oversimplistic, or itself a dishonest way of looking at the evidence. It appears (I have now done some more reading) that there is a recognised danger in psych. of the doctor starting off with preconceived notions and fitting the evidence to those theories. Unfortunately we ALL do this; it's a way of life, and it's part of the human condition. This is why there are heated debates on CP from both sides, intransigent - people as Paul Simon once remarked "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". My point is this: it is so embedded in the human psyche to do this, that we cannot speak of it as deceit, or if it is, then we need to expand the article to discuss it more fully. From what I have read, I do not believe that Freud was deceitful. Misguided, a poor scientist, maybe, but deceitful, no. If you want to label him as a liar and a rogue who deliberately set out to devceive people, then I think that you ought to use the same criteria that you would need if he were still alive, i.e. that if you were to say these things, you had better have some good evidence to back your statements or have a damn good lawyer who could fend off the inevitable lawsuit which will follow. On the evidence that you have

:I am no advocate of Freud, and if you note above, I am the one who supplied the reference which is not being used selectively in the article to support the contention that Freud lied. The point is well made above that this may be oversimplistic, or itself a dishonest way of looking at the evidence. It appears (I have now done some more reading) that there is a recognised danger in psych. of the doctor starting off with preconceived notions and fitting the evidence to those theories. Unfortunately we ALL do this; it's a way of life, and it's part of the human condition. This is why there are heated debates on CP from both sides, intransigent - people as Paul Simon once remarked "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". My point is this: it is so embedded in the human psyche to do this, that we cannot speak of it as deceit, or if it is, then we need to expand the article to discuss it more fully. From what I have read, I do not believe that Freud was deceitful. Misguided, a poor scientist, maybe, but deceitful, no. If you want to label him as a liar and a rogue who deliberately set out to devceive people, then I think that you ought to use the same criteria that you would need if he were still alive, i.e. that if you were to say these things, you had better have some good evidence to back your statements or have a damn good lawyer who could fend off the inevitable lawsuit which will follow. On the evidence that you have presented you could expect that Freud would slap a lawsuit for libel on you --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==

==10 Commandments==