Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sigmund Freud"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Popper: A lot of psychology is useful)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
Popper is usually accepted to have created one of the better definitions of science - although personally, I prefer Lakatos. But it's probably fair to say that Freudianism isn't science. However, I disagree with the implication that this makes Freud's work useless. Psychology is a social science, and most social sciences aren't scientific in the strictly Popperesque sense, but they're still useful. And strictly speaking, medicine often isn't exactly falsifiable, either. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Popper is usually accepted to have created one of the better definitions of science - although personally, I prefer Lakatos. But it's probably fair to say that Freudianism isn't science. However, I disagree with the implication that this makes Freud's work useless. Psychology is a social science, and most social sciences aren't scientific in the strictly Popperesque sense, but they're still useful. And strictly speaking, medicine often isn't exactly falsifiable, either. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Bah, 99 percent of the work that I do in psychology is more closely aligned with [[Karl Popper]] and the [[scientific method]] then a great deal of the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry :). [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Bah, 99 percent of the work that I do in psychology is more closely aligned with [[Karl Popper]] and the [[scientific method]] then a great deal of the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry :). [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: A lot of psychology is useful. I am not putting down psychology. But Freud's work was crap, and caused more harm than good. His theories aren't useful for anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:01, 28 April 2007

Not sure how important it is that he was an atheist, though it could be mentioned in relation to that debate he had with C.S. Lewis. Also, a citation about the euthanasia thing would be useful.

Prof R C Tallis

Can you explain how a Professor of Geriatric Medicine is an expert in psychology( or even science--as opposed to medicine or geriatrics)? If not I really think that reference is inappropriate and should be removed. --Reginod 13:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Now he is being used to support mere gossip. Weakening the claim does not make him a better source for its veracity, but it does make the claim entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. “Some have charged X with Y” is nothing but gossip and should be immediately removed as it violates the commandments. --Reginod 11:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Popper

Actually now that I look at it I think the comment about Popper should also be removed, since the opinions of philosophers are not relevant to what is or is not science (as per this comment [1] ), but to be clear that I am acting in good faith I figured I’d put this on the talk page to avoid any appearance that I was engaging in an edit war or some other forbidden behavior.--Reginod 13:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

If Popper isn't a good source on what is or is not science I'm not sure who would be. Some of the end of this article is a bit of a stretch, at least the part about no experiments showing any merit of his work. There are many studies showing that psychoanalysis can be a useful treatment. But that has little to do with Freud's ideas about psychosexual stages or id/ego/superego. Murray 13:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried cleaning it up a bit to reflect reality. Popper is defiantly a worthy source for the discussion of what is and is not science. Tmtoulouse 14:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
That's much better. Murray 14:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I, personally, would tend to agree with both of you, Popper should be usable as a source for what is or is not science. But, I don’t make the rules here. See the comment I linked to above . Philosophers of science are not relevant sources when dealing with science. The views of philosophers are opinions when it comes to science (see here [2] ). --Reginod 15:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Eh we make the rules on pages that have yet to be discovered and put through the CP intellectual downgrade. Let Schlafly come and say Popper doesn't know anything first, I don't want to proactively dumb down articles myself :).Tmtoulouse 15:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
The Popper reference is useful because it helps explain that Freud's work was never scientific. Otherwise, people might think that it was scientific, but has merely been superceded by modern brain research. RSchlafly 15:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Why is Popper, a philosopher and not a scientist, an appropriate reference here? Or is it now the case that philosophers of science are relevant sources when it comes to science? --Reginod 15:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Freud was not a scientist either. Freud was a charlatan. Popper is cited for a point in the philosophy of science, and he was an expert on that. RSchlafly 17:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Last time I cited a philosopher of science for a point about just that I was told that it was not relevant, in fact I was told that it was not relevant by you. Why is philosophy of science relevant for the current (or past) state of science here, but not in the case of Newton? --Reginod 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Popper is usually accepted to have created one of the better definitions of science - although personally, I prefer Lakatos. But it's probably fair to say that Freudianism isn't science. However, I disagree with the implication that this makes Freud's work useless. Psychology is a social science, and most social sciences aren't scientific in the strictly Popperesque sense, but they're still useful. And strictly speaking, medicine often isn't exactly falsifiable, either. --AKjeldsen 11:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Bah, 99 percent of the work that I do in psychology is more closely aligned with Karl Popper and the scientific method then a great deal of the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry :). Tmtoulouse 12:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot of psychology is useful. I am not putting down psychology. But Freud's work was crap, and caused more harm than good. His theories aren't useful for anything. RSchlafly 14:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)