5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Regarding some Errors: new section
== Religions and Freud ==
== Religions and Freud ==
Freud has imaginative theories about religions and there they are comming from (Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics). Should these be critisized here? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Freud has imaginative theories about religions and there they are comming from (Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics). Should these be critisized here? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
== Regarding some Errors ==
There seem to be some errors on this page.
Although I detest Freud's anti-religious views (and cocaine use), to say his work is considered pseudoscience is pretty outlandish. In Science there is a difference between Quantitative and Qualitative evidence. Now because of the nature of psychology, much of his work falls under the the realm of qualitative evidence, which uses characteristics instead of numbers to prove something.
The "falsifiability" lies with the results of his patients which is, quite frankly, world renowned as his work has lead to the help of many including those who were clinically ill. If his work didn't help the patients out and had left them brainwashed/traumatized etc. it would of been rejected. The massive spread of psychoanalysis is due to its effectiveness and it has gone through many scientific studies/advances etc.
Also I'm not certain the source claiming he falsified his theories is reliable because up to that point almost no one had such theories besides him :/
But hey as someone who studied Psychology and had to write a large essay on Freud I thought I could just point some things out. :)