12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: + + + +
no edit summary
: So where is the evidence that Freud ever helped anyone? The massive spread of psychoanalysis is for reasons other than its effectiveness. And it is not spreading anymore, as most people agree that it does not work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)
: So where is the evidence that Freud ever helped anyone? The massive spread of psychoanalysis is for reasons other than its effectiveness. And it is not spreading anymore, as most people agree that it does not work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)
== Misleading statements ==
I think that this sentence of the article is misleading: "However other critics of Freud, such as Hans Eysenck and Adolf Grunbaum, while viewing his theories as wrong, have conceded that they may indeed be falsifiable." As far as I know from reading his books, Grunbaum does not see all of Freud's theories as necessarily being "wrong". He does believe that there is strong evidence against some of Freud's theories (for example, his dream theory), but that some of Freud's other theories may be correct. He gives Freud's ideas about the development of homosexuality as one example of this (he argues this in Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis; I can quote that book and provide page references, if it helps). Furthermore, I do not believe that it is Grunbaum's view that all of Freud's theories are necessarily falsifiable: some of them are, some might not be. As I am new to Conservapedia, I am not going to try to change or remove that sentence right away, but I think it is important to note that it is misleading. Comments? [[User:DFWilson|DFWilson]] 17:35, 23 February 2012 (EST)