New thought

[curiousone]

"Science a systematic enterprise that creates and builds organized knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions of the universe".

 

How come philosophy psychology etc cannot copy the above sentence for science? Curiousone

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from Science News to General Philosophy.

[cladking]

"Science a systematic enterprise that creates and builds organized knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions of the universe".

 

How come philosophy psychology etc cannot copy the above sentence for science? Curiousone

 

Science is a process dependent on metaphysics with it's own language that is nondeconstructable.

 

 

Philosophy is dependent on words that mean a little something different to each person. Psychology is far worse because all knowledge is dependent on arcane and poorly defined or understood terms.

 

Human progress is solely the result of language and its ability to allow individuals to build on the work of the past. It's impossible to build on the work of the past if you don't understand it the way it was intended. It's impossible to study the id or superego if there's no such thing as the subconscious.

[Strange]

"Science a systematic enterprise that creates and builds organized knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions of the universe".

 

How come philosophy psychology etc cannot copy the above sentence for science? Curiousone

 

That is a rather loose definition of science that probably could perhaps also fit philosophy. Philosophy is not an evidence based discipline though, which is what distinguishes it from science.

 

Psychology can be, and today often is, a science. Sadly, it has a history of people like Freud associated with it.

 

I don't know what your "etc" covers. Perhaps some of them are science and some aren't.

[Gees]

Curiousone;

 

"Science a systematic enterprise that creates and builds organized knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions of the universe".

 

How come philosophy psychology etc cannot copy the above sentence for science? Curiousone

 

I thought that psychology was a branch of science, and science was a branch of philosophy. Am I wrong here? Why would you want all of the branches to be the same? If they were, what would be the point of branches?

 

Neither philosophy nor psychology made copy machines; science did that. So science will have to produce their own copies. (chuckle chuckle)

 

 

Strange;

 

That is a rather loose definition of science that probably could perhaps also fit philosophy. Philosophy is not an evidence based discipline though, which is what distinguishes it from science.

 

Philosophy is not "evidence based"? They just make stuff up? This is nonsense.

 

Either a citation or a retraction is required.

 

Psychology can be, and today often is, a science. Sadly, it has a history of people like Freud associated with it.

 

Psychology is a science mostly because of Freud. People think of Sigmund Freud as a psychologist or psychoanalyst, but he was not trained as one. Why? Because there was no formal training, as psychology was not an accepted science at that time.

 

Freud was a medical doctor, who specialized in brain studies, so that would translate to a neurologist. He was a scientist, who was interested in mind and found like minded people to study and learn with.

 

Although behavioral psychology was having some successes, they were not enough to bring psychology into the acceptance of science. It was Freud's divisions of mind and association of those divisions with different parts of the brain, that finally caused the acceptance of psychology as a valid science. So Freud was a pioneer and some of Freud's associations were proven to be wrong, but enough was right that we still believe that parts of the brain are related to parts of the mind.

 

Psychology is listed in the Science section of this forum because it is a science.

 

Gee

[dimreepr]

Curiousone;

 

 

I thought that psychology was a branch of science, and science was a branch of philosophy. Am I wrong here? Why would you want all of the branches to be the same? If they were, what would be the point of branches?

 

Neither philosophy nor psychology made copy machines; science did that. So science will have to produce their own copies. (chuckle chuckle)

 

 

Strange;

 

 

Philosophy is not "evidence based"? They just make stuff up? This is nonsense.

 

Either a citation or a retraction is required.

 

 

Good luck with that approach.

 

 

Freud was a medical doctor, who specialized in brain studies, so that would translate to a neurologist. He was a scientist, who was interested in mind and found like minded people to study and learn with.

 

 

 

That’s like saying Jesus was a neurologist, obvious BS, but the influence is roughly the same since neurology came after; much like Queen Victoria influenced the nuclear bomb.

[Strange]

 

Philosophy is not "evidence based"? They just make stuff up? This is nonsense.

 

Either a citation or a retraction is required.

 

Luckily, I never said that so I don't have to support it or retract it.

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

That’s like saying Jesus was a neurologist, obvious BS, but the influence is roughly the same since neurology came after; much like Queen Victoria influenced the nuclear bomb.

 

Please note the following quote regarding Sigmund Freud from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

1. Life

<snip>

The scope of Freud’s interests, and of his professional training, was very broad. He always considered himself first and foremost a scientist, endeavoring to extend the compass of human knowledge, and to this end (rather than to the practice of medicine) he enrolled at the medical school at the University of Vienna in 1873. He concentrated initially on biology, doing research in physiology for six years under the great German scientist Ernst Brücke, who was director of the Physiology Laboratory at the University, and thereafter specializing in neurology.

<snip>

 

I thought the integrity of this forum was higher.

 

 

 

Strange;

 

Luckily, I never said that so I don't have to support it or retract it.

 

But you did say, "Philosophy is not an evidence based discipline though, which is what distinguishes it from science." two posts prior.

 

What does that mean, if it does not mean that "Philosophy is not 'evidence based'?"

 

Gee

[Ophiolite]

 

Please note the following quote regarding Sigmund Freud from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

I thought the integrity of this forum was higher.

The quoted reference, the quality of which I have no knowledge of, does not state he was a scientist, but that he thought of himself as a scientist. Those are different statements.

 

If I concede he was a scientist, I shall also argue that he was a rather poor scientist who allowed his speculation to find its way into publishes theories. I read Interpretation of Dreams when I was fifteen and concluded that his over-emphasis on sex was because of his failure to recognise the bias in his patient samples. Nothing has occurred in the intervening half century to alter that opinion.

 

Freud was important because he established the possibility of psychology as a science. He is a liability because the vast majority of his ideas were nonsense and his experimental processes were inadequate, and ultimately this held back the progress of the field for decades.

 

Bering objective is a sign of integrity. You know this.

[Strange]

If anything Freud invented is consistent with modern neuroscience that is purely by chance, not because he did any scientific studies of the brain, or human behaviour or anything else. Luckily, modern psychology has moved on to become a more science-based discipline.

[Delta1212]

Dimreepr;

 

 

Please note the following quote regarding Sigmund Freud from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

 

I thought the integrity of this forum was higher.

 

 

 

Strange;

 

 

But you did say, "Philosophy is not an evidence based discipline though, which is what distinguishes it from science." two posts prior.

 

What does that mean, if it does not mean that "Philosophy is not 'evidence based'?"

 

Gee

 

Science concerns it itself with, and only with, those things on which empirical data can be gathered. If you have evidence regarding something (for or against), you can deal with it scientifically, and if you want to deal with something scientifically, you need evidence (for or against it).

 

Philosophy as a broad subject doesn't have that restriction. There are a multitude of subjects that can be dealt with philosophically without requiring you to go out and test them against what happens in the real world. This is why you can have philosophical thought experiments like the Trolley Problem that help to illustrate and discuss certain ideas, but you don't need to go out and actually crash a trolley into a group of people in order to have a valid philosophical discussion about the issue.

 

You can similarly have thought experiments about scientific theories, but if you want it to actually be science, you need to go collect some real-world numbers and see how well they hold up to your thoughts.

 

Pointing out that being evidence-based is the distinguishing characteristic of science is not necessarily a criticism of philosophy and is certainly not the same thing as saying that philosophy is just "making things up."

Edited February 19, 2016 by Delta1212

[Strange]

Exactly. There is not a discipline of "experimental philosophy" (well, there is: it is called science) nor is there a technology based on applied philosophy.

 

The strength of philosophy is its rigorous analysis and questioning of ideas. This can be applied to any subject such as ethics, mathematics, morality, or science and greatly strengthens those subjects.

 

(Of course, there is a common misuse of the word "philosophy", analogous to the abuse of the word "theory", that we often encounter on science forums: that is as shorthand for "random ideas I have made up".)

[Gees]

Ophiolite;

 

Please consider:

 

The quoted reference, the quality of which I have no knowledge of, does not state he was a scientist, but that he thought of himself as a scientist. Those are different statements.

 

No it does not state that he was a scientist, but it does state that he studied at University for years in biology and the medical field, and we know that he worked in the medical field. If you are confused, maybe you could look up physiology. If you are still convinced that he was not a scientist, maybe you could suggest to the owner of this forum that he needs to remove biology and the medical sciences from the Science section, because training and working in these fields does not seem to make one a scientist. So there would be no one to answer questions in these fields.

 

As to the "quality" of my reference, I would state that any valid history on Freud would include his schooling. I noted the name of my source, and you could have Googled it. I would suggest that you "have no knowledge of", because you don't want to have knowledge of. Does your response sound like it was "objective" to you?

 

If I concede he was a scientist, I shall also argue that he was a rather poor scientist who allowed his speculation to find its way into publishes theories. I read Interpretation of Dreams when I was fifteen and concluded that his over-emphasis on sex was because of his failure to recognise the bias in his patient samples. Nothing has occurred in the intervening half century to alter that opinion.

 

It is not surprising that a fifteen year old would have trouble discerning the difference between sex and sexuality, as the vast majority of adults still don't understand the difference. Actually, from what I have read, his interpretations of dreams is some of his most valuable and respected work.

 

Freud was important because he established the possibility of psychology as a science. He is a liability because the vast majority of his ideas were nonsense and his experimental processes were inadequate, and ultimately this held back the progress of the field for decades.

 

The above is only opinion with no evidence presented -- so it means nothing. I did a thread on Freud a few years back in another forum, and in my research, I discovered that it was his notions about sexuality that set him back. Some histories will talk about his "grim" discovery, as they don't want to mention it, but the simple truth is that he discovered that a large number of girls were being initiated into sex by people in their own families at a very young age. When he tried to share this knowledge, people were horrified. He soon realized that he could not divulge the information, but then ended up having to, so some people hate him for discovering it, and some people hate him for trying to hide it. It was an impossible situation for him.

 

Then he had the audacity to state that infants were sexual. Again, all of us good Christians were horrified, because as we all know, babies are innocent and sex is sin. OH NO!

 

Many people still believe that infantile sexuality is a myth, but his ideas have been vindicated by advances in surgery. In the last 40 or so years, surgery has advanced to the point where they can fix babies born with dubious sexuality -- it was, Do you want a boy or a girl? We can make it happen. Science probably thought this a great achievement, but it became problematic when the "boy" grew up and stated that he was a girl, or when the "girl" grew up and stated that she was a boy. Surgery learned that it had to wait and see which the child would develop into, because infant sexuality is real -- whether it is obvious or not.

Bering objective is a sign of integrity. You know this.

 

Yes. So is honesty.

 

 

Strange;

 

If anything Freud invented is consistent with modern neuroscience that is purely by chance, not because he did any scientific studies of the brain, or human behaviour or anything else. Luckily, modern psychology has moved on to become a more science-based discipline.

 

I didn't know he was an inventor.

 

 

Delta;

 

Please consider:

 

Science concerns it itself with, and only with, those things on which empirical data can be gathered. If you have evidence regarding something (for or against), you can deal with it scientifically, and if you want to deal with something scientifically, you need evidence (for or against it).

 

And your point is??? You addressed this post to me, but the subject matter of my post was not science; it was philosophy. Do you realize that any time I ask for some respect for philosophy, I will get a lecture on what science is? Do you think that I don't know what science is? Do you know what philosophy is -- because that is the subject matter.

 

I am beginning to believe that asking for respect for philosophy in this forum, in some way diminishes or attacks science, so it has to be defended. But that is utter nonsense.

 

Philosophy as a broad subject doesn't have that restriction. There are a multitude of subjects that can be dealt with philosophically without requiring you to go out and test them against what happens in the real world. This is why you can have philosophical thought experiments like the Trolley Problem that help to illustrate and discuss certain ideas, but you don't need to go out and actually crash a trolley into a group of people in order to have a valid philosophical discussion about the issue.

 

Do you realize that you talked about "empirical data" and "evidence" in your first paragraph, then changed it to "test them" in this paragraph. Do you think that empirical data, evidence, and testing are all the same thing? I find that a lot of science people seem to use these different concepts interchangeably, but evidence does not require testing in order to exist.

 

You picked an ethical issue with the Trolley Problem, which is probably one of the more difficult to understand in terms of evidence. But consider, in the real world, a trolley car can not stop on a dime, and it can not swerve off the track, and it can not jump over a victim -- there is evidence of this. People's reaction to the moral issues can be and are observed -- observation is also evidence. Without this evidence that matches up with the real world, the Trolley Problem would not be a "thought experiment", it would be nonsense.

 

You can similarly have thought experiments about scientific theories, but if you want it to actually be science, you need to go collect some real-world numbers and see how well they hold up to your thoughts.

Pointing out that being evidence-based is the distinguishing characteristic of science is not necessarily a criticism of philosophy and is certainly not the same thing as saying that philosophy is just "making things up."

 

Being evidence-based is not a distinguishing characteristic of science. It is a distinguishing characteristic of philosophy. The distinguishing characteristic, that separates science from philosophy, is the scientific method that requires testing, mathematical accuracies, and repeatability.

 

If you remove the idea of evidence from philosophy, then you end up with a forum where people substitute opinion, imagination, and wild imaginings, while citing no references. Or, as I call it, you end up with a FLUFF forum for nitwits. Does this irritate me? Oh yes.

 

 

Strange;

 

Please consider:

 

Exactly. There is not a discipline of "experimental philosophy" (well, there is: it is called science) nor is there a technology based on applied philosophy.

 

Applied philosophy IS science.

 

The strength of philosophy is its rigorous analysis and questioning of ideas. This can be applied to any subject such as ethics, mathematics, morality, or science and greatly strengthens those subjects.

 

Agreed. Philosophy applies rigorous analysis and questioning to ALL subjects, and one can not do rigorous analysis unless there is some evidence to analyze. Evidence can be material, it can be math, it can be observation, and it can be experience and testimony.

 

(Of course, there is a common misuse of the word "philosophy", analogous to the abuse of the word "theory", that we often encounter on science forums: that is as shorthand for "random ideas I have made up".)

 

Agreed. If someone used "random ideas I have made up" and called it a theory in the science forum, it would be challenged, or it would be removed to speculations.

 

So if someone used "random ideas I have made up" as an argument in philosophy, it should also be challenged. Like when Dimreepr made the following post, which is pure nonsense, and I challenged it using an acceptable reference regarding Freud's history.

 

That’s like saying Jesus was a neurologist, obvious BS, but the influence is roughly the same since neurology came after; much like Queen Victoria influenced the nuclear bomb.

 

It should be noted that even though the above quote is obvious nonsense, and has no evidence, references, citations, or even logic to support it, it was not challenged by anyone other than me. As a matter of fact, I was challenged because I challenged the above nonsensical quote. I am surprised that the nonsense did not get a plus vote, as it often does.

 

This is not unusual in the philosophy section of this forum. Even though the management and moderators seem interested in "quality" posts, their interest does not extend to the philosophy forum where anything goes. I can not remember any moderator ever giving a reprimand for nonsensical or obviously unsupported ideas in the philosophy forum, UNLESS they were relevant to an interest that science takes.

 

So I would like to thank all of the posters, who went out of their way to prove my point. I have no reason to expect integrity in the philosophy section of this forum.

 

Gee

[imatfaal]

Please consider:...

...

Does your response sound like it was "objective" to you?

...

If you are confused, maybe you could look up physiology.

...

It is not surprising that a fifteen year old would have trouble discerning the difference between sex and sexuality

...

surgery has advanced to the point where they can fix babies born with dubious sexuality

...

Or, as I call it, you end up with a FLUFF forum for nitwits

...

Evidence [] can be math

...

Just a small selection of the sophistry, insults, snide insinuations, fallacies, terminological kincker-twists, and rhetoric in this thread so far; not surprising after all the rubbish which is posted that

 

I have no reason to expect integrity in the philosophy section of this forum.

[Strange]

No it does not state that he was a scientist, but it does state that he studied at University for years in biology and the medical field, and we know that he worked in the medical field.

 

That does not make him a scientist. I'm sure plenty of quacks studied biology and/or medicine and worked in the medical field.

 

I didn't know he was an inventor.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

Applied philosophy IS science.

 

Citation needed.

[dimreepr]

It should be noted that even though the above quote is obvious nonsense, and has no evidence, references, citations, or even logic to support it, it was not challenged by anyone other than me.

 

 

Evidence is required for fact not opinion; also it seems they understood the reference to causality, which is possibly Freud’s greatest contribution.

 

 

As a matter of fact, I was challenged because I challenged the above nonsensical quote. I am surprised that the nonsense did not get a plus vote, as it often does.

 

 

 

Maybe you should expend more energy on why you were challenged rather than insulting and denying.

Gees;

 

Please consider:

 

Piety...

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

Please consider:

 

Evidence is required for fact not opinion;

 

Maybe in a layman's interpretation, but not in philosophy.

 

First, one must consider that evidence does not automatically become fact; it must be interpreted. We will posit that you have observed a grungy man grabbing an old woman and putting her into his dirty pick-up truck. This observation is evidence, but what is it evidence of? Is it evidence of rape, theft, murder, or mayhem? Or is it evidence of a grandson, who has been desperately searching for his ailing grandmother, who has alzheimer's?

 

Interpreting evidence to find fact is a large part of what philosophy does. In the above scenario, there is no way to determine which may be true without further evidence, information, or knowledge of the circumstances, so offering an opinion is worthless to philosophy, as it does not reflect truth.

 

So why are philosophers always stating, "In my opinion"? When you read, imo, you should understand that it means "this is the conclusion that I have reached", and it usually follows the argument that sets out the evidence and logic that was used to form that opinion/conclusion. Sometimes the philosopher will use "imo" without explanation, because it was worked out previously. In science, people will say, "I'm just speculating." which seems to be a disclaimer. To my knowledge, there is no such disclaimer in philosophy.

 

No matter the circumstance, when you read, imo, you are reading a conclusion based on evidence, interpretation, and logic, so it is an invitation for you to challenge and examine the evidence, interpretation of that evidence, and the logic that caused that conclusion. It is not an invitation to disagree based on your opinion, imagination, or speculations, as that would simply be arguing for the sake of arguing -- it would not be making an argument.

 

A philosophical argument is much like a scientific experiment. There are rules regarding what can and can not be used in an argument, just like there are rules regarding scientific experimentation and testing. Formal logic sets out many of the rules in a philosophical argument, and evidence is necessary because one can not interpret evidence that does not exist.

 

also it seems they understood the reference to causality, which is possibly Freud’s greatest contribution.

 

Well, obviously I did not understand it, so maybe you would like to explain "Freud's greatest contribution". Oh, and try to throw some evidence and/or facts in with your explanation.

 

Maybe you should expend more energy on why you were challenged rather than insulting and denying.

 

Why is it that when people disagree with me, they assume it is because I am ignorant of the facts? There were two reasons: One, I questioned the integrity of this forum; two, everybody loves to hate Freud.

 

Please consider:

Piety...

 

Piety is a really bad idea for me to attempt. Since I study consciousness, separating myself from any and all religion was imperative in order to be able to honestly evaluate religion's input into the idea of consciousness.

 

Maybe you mean that I am a little arrogant? Yes, that would be true. But a lot of people are arrogant. Imagine the arrogance of a person, who knows nothing about philosophy, going into a philosophy forum, and trying to tell people what philosophy is based on. It would be like me going into the science section, and trying to tell them how to do science -- even I am not that arrogant.

 

 

Strange;

 

That does not make him a scientist. I'm sure plenty of quacks studied biology and/or medicine and worked in the medical field.

 

While researching a thread on Freud, I learned that even people who disagreed with Freud admitted that he was a genius -- does not sound like a "quack" to me.

 

I remember an argument with Swansont where I stated that he was not a philosopher, and he explained that his PhD stated otherwise. Maybe you could take this "not make him a scientist" business up with him.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

See, this is the part where you explain that Freud was indeed an inventor, then you cite evidence of same. Then I get to learn something.

 

Arguments from incredulity are not really arguments -- just more nonsense.

 

Citation needed.

 

Sure.

 

"Strange, on 19 Feb 2016 - 2:52 PM, said:

Exactly. There is not a discipline of "experimental philosophy" (well, there is: it is called science)"

Gee

[Strange]

Maybe you mean that I am a little arrogant? Yes, that would be true.

 

Well, there is something we can all agree on, at least.

 

While researching a thread on Freud, I learned that even people who disagreed with Freud admitted that he was a genius -- does not sound like a "quack" to me.

 

Being a genius (even if true) doesn't make him a scientist. For someone who claims to be a "philosopher" you demonstrate very sloppy thinking.

 

See, this is the part where you explain that Freud was indeed an inventor, then you cite evidence of same.

 

"Hans Eysenck, who writes in Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985) that Freud set back the study of psychology and psychiatry "by something like fifty years or more",^%5B168%5D and Malcolm Macmillan, who concludes in Freud Evaluated (1991) that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes".^%5B169%5D Morris Eagle states that it has been "demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".^%5B170%5DRichard Webster, in Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), called psychoanalysis perhaps the most complex and successful pseudoscience in history.^%5B171%5D Crews believes that psychoanalysis has no scientific or therapeutic merit.^%5B172%5D"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

 

As I say, because he wasn't a scientist his "theories" were pretty much just stuff he made up. He had a few lucky guesses that do seem to be supported by later science. (Although, even now, much research in psychology seems to be of pretty poor quality, so I don't know how valid that support is).

 

Arguments from incredulity are not really arguments -- just more nonsense.

 

So, again, it seems your opinions count as "philosophy" while other people's opinions are nonsense.

 

You keep going on about how you are a philosopher and feel this forum lacks depth and integrity so I wonder why you hang around. I'm sure there are other forums where your insights will be given the acclaim they deserve.

 

Sure.

 

So you don't have one.

 

Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_philosophy

 

Perhaps you want to edit that page to add Science.

 

 

"Strange, on 19 Feb 2016 - 2:52 PM, said:

Exactly. There is not a discipline of "experimental philosophy" (well, there is: it is called science)"

 

I fail to see the relevance of you quoting that again. Especially as you left off the relevant part.

[dimreepr]

Piety is a really bad idea for me to attempt. Since I study consciousness, separating myself from any and all religion was imperative in order to be able to honestly evaluate religion's input into the idea of consciousness.

 

 

I’m not suggesting you attempt it, I’m suggesting you are pious.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Freud_Was_Wrong

 

 

Webster argues that Freud became a kind of Messiah and that psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science and a disguised continuation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.^[2]

 

 

 

Well, obviously I did not understand it, so maybe you would like to explain "Freud's greatest contribution". Oh, and try to throw some evidence and/or facts in with your explanation.

 

 

 

As I have little time or intelligence (ATM) I’ll borrow Stranges (hope that’s ok) reference:

 

 

"Hans Eysenck, who writes in Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985) that Freud set back the study of psychology and psychiatry "by something like fifty years or more",^%5B168%5D and Malcolm Macmillan, who concludes in Freud Evaluated (1991) that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes".^%5B169%5D Morris Eagle states that it has been "demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".^%5B170%5DRichard Webster, in Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), called psychoanalysis perhaps the most complex and successful pseudoscience in history.^%5B171%5D Crews believes that psychoanalysis has no scientific or therapeutic merit.^%5B172%5D"

https://en.wikipedia...i/Sigmund_Freud

 

 

 

 

I was suggesting his contribution is purely through causality and is no more valuable, to modern neurology, than any other layman of his era, which, as the above implies, is generous.

Edited February 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[Ophiolite]

No it does not state that he was a scientist, but it does state that he studied at University for years in biology and the medical field, and we know that he worked in the medical field. If you are confused, maybe you could look up physiology. If you are still convinced that he was not a scientist, maybe you could suggest to the owner of this forum that he needs to remove biology and the medical sciences from the Science section, because training and working in these fields does not seem to make one a scientist. So there would be no one to answer questions in these fields.

It does seem as if my intent and points have been poorly made and for that I apologise. Let me repeat my original points -some of which were implicit, hopefully with greater clarity:

1. I have no doubt that psychology is a science. (None of my remarks sought to establish the contrary.)

2. In seeking to contest dimreepr's implicit assertion that Freud was not a scientist you presented a quote from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. My main point was to note that the quotation did not support your belief that he was a scientist. You appear to agree with this.

3. I have not had occasion to decide whether Freud was or was not a scientist. That was incidental to the points I was making. It may be important to you - it is incidental and minor to me.

 

As to the "quality" of my reference, I would state that any valid history on Freud would include his schooling. I noted the name of my source, and you could have Googled it. I would suggest that you "have no knowledge of", because you don't want to have knowledge of. Does your response sound like it was "objective" to you?

My response not only sounds objective it is objective. I specifically mentioned that I had no knowledge of its quality because I don't. I specifically did not bother to inquire into its quality because that was irrelevant. I shared this information with you as a matter of proper disclosure.

 

You appear to think I am denying that Freud was a scientist. I am not. (Nor am I agreeing he was). I simply questioned the value of one portion of the quote you used to support your assertion.

 

 

It is not surprising that a fifteen year old would have trouble discerning the difference between sex and sexuality, as the vast majority of adults still don't understand the difference. Actually, from what I have read, his interpretations of dreams is some of his most valuable and respected work.

So, you form your opinion on the value of the work based upon what others have said about it, rather than upon your own careful study of the work. It seems you have not even read it!

As I noted in my post I have seen no reason in the intervening fifty years to alter my opinion on the work. Incidentally, I have no idea why you would think distinguishing between sex and sexuality have a major bearing on the work. My objections to it remain the restricted sample from which he chose to derive his hypotheses and the lack of any controls in his investigations.

 

 

The above is only opinion with no evidence presented -- so it means nothing.

I offered it as an opinion - this is a discussion forum. It is a carefully considered opinion. It is as valuable or valueless as any other opinion. The evidence is there for anyone who cares to look. I approached Freud with a zest and passion thinking that he was a genius with great insights. I found instead a rather insubstantial facade.

 

Yes. So is honesty.

 

You imply I have been dishonest. If this was your intent, please specify where I have been dishonest.

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

I am going to answer your post today, but expect to take a day or two more before I can address Strange and Ophiolite.

 

Please consider:

 

I’m not suggesting you attempt it, I’m suggesting you are pious.

 

This gave me a good chuckle. People, who know me, would undoubtedly fall out of their chairs laughing at this idea, but then you don't know me. The word, pious, is most often associated with religious ideas, spirituality, or following some predetermined ideal. I am not religious, am a lousy follower, and am willing to consider any idea that has evidence and logic behind it. If being a stickler for evidence and logic makes me pious, then it could be stated that all of science is pious, as they are some serious sticklers.

 

It is true that a lot of people seemed to be enamored of Freud, and many called themselves, Freudians, but this is mostly related to different theories of psychology or psychoanalysis. I am not a psychologist, never studied it, and don't really care whose ideas of therapy work or don't work, so this is not remotely descriptive of me.

 

Freud's value to me is in his understanding of mind, because I study consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Freud_Was_Wrong

 

"Webster argues that Freud became a kind of Messiah and that psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science and a disguised continuation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.^[2]"

 

I read about half of Webster's argument and was not impressed. Webster is not the most intelligent of men, my opinion, and I wonder about his motive for doing this work. As to Freud being wrong, I stated in my first post about him, that many of his associations were proven wrong.

 

As far as Freud being a "kind of Messiah", this is a misleading exaggeration. It is true that a lot of people jumped on the Freud bandwagon, but not true that Freud was trying to start a religion -- as there is no evidence of this. Freud unlocked the door to the mind, and a lot of people were impressed, but they had no real understanding of the complexity of mind. It was the work of these "followers" that caused most of the misery and grief, which set psychology back 50 years -- if indeed anyone can say that a science that does not yet exist can be set back.

 

His following was very much like what happened with penicillin. My Grandmother was a nurse back in the 1930's, and told me that when people came to see their doctors it was almost a case of "Here have a shot of the new 'wonder drug'", then it was, "What brought you in to see me?" She said that was an exaggeration, but only a mild exaggeration. Penicillin was seriously overused. I think that it was the 70's when doctors were told to stop giving out antibiotics for every little thing, as it was becoming a problem. Doctors can be as faddish as anyone else, especially when it comes to something new and impressive.

 

As far as saying that psychoanalysis is pseudo-science, it could be argued that all of psychology is pseudo-science. Psychology is the study of mind -- something that we don't actually know what it is; mind is our only real evidence of consciousness -- something that we don't actually know what it is. It is pretty hard to do repeatable testing on something, when we don't actually know what it is. But the information from psychology is too valuable to ignore, so we compromise and call it a soft science.

 

As far as continuing the Judeo-Christian traditions, this was when I decided that Webster was just silly and not very intelligent. Religion studies emotion. That is what spirituality actually is; it is emotion. imo. Since religion has studied spirituality/emotion for tens of thousands of years, it would not be surprising to find that they discovered some things that seem to work. Freud unlocked some of the secrets in the unconscious mind; and the unconscious works through -- emotion. So finding that some of the techniques used by religion also work in psychology with regard to the unconscious, would not be surprising, in fact it would help validate the theories. Buddhism and some of the Eastern religions also have much in common with psychology.

 

I suspect that Webster has some personal religious issues that are reflecting on his work.

 

As I have little time or intelligence (ATM) I’ll borrow Stranges (hope that’s ok) reference:

 

Be careful what you borrow. Strange's biggest complaint is that Freud is not a scientist, but the last reference regarding Wiki's take on Freud, states in the first sentence that Freud was an "Austrian neurologist". Last time I checked, a neurologist is a scientist.

 

I was suggesting his contribution is purely through causality and is no more valuable, to modern neurology, than any other layman of his era, which, as the above implies, is generous.

 

If you carefully review what the "above implies", I think that you will find the large majority of it is related to psychoanalysis. Why is that? Because there are a lot of people trying to experiment with and promote their own ideas on analysis. Is there one analysis technique that works on all people? I seriously doubt it. Just like you can tell one person attempting suicide to go ahead, and they will stop because they were looking for attention, someone to talk to. But you can follow the same routine with another person, and the fool will jump. Analysis is complex, and I suspect that people will be arguing about the right and wrong of different techniques for many years.

 

Freud's greatest contribution was that he unlocked the mind. His famous iceberg analogy, where he explains that the tip of the iceberg that we see is just a small part of mind; the vast majority of it is unknown. (If you are not familiar with the iceberg concept, you can Wiki "unconscious".) Then he divided mind into three sections, the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo. How did he distinguish the different sections? By how they work and what activates them. So this was all abstract thinking on his part, which is probably why he is called a genius. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to take something that can not be seen, measured, touched, or heard, and separate the parts of it just by how they work? Then go on to evaluate how these different parts of this invisible something actually interact?

 

We had been studying the Ego, the rational mind, for hundreds of years, but had no understanding of the unconscious mind. Actually, religion was in charge of the unconscious, and interpretations of angels and demons and "The Devil made me do it." were pretty commonly accepted. The mentally ill were often thought of as cursed people.

 

Everyone knew that we had drives that made no sense to us, or actions that seemed out of character, but no one knew why. Back in Freud's day, instincts were behaviors that other species exhibited because they did not have souls, like we do. What Freud identified as "drives" in the Id, are mostly instincts that are hardwired into our systems in the form of hormones, but Freud could not have known this, as information came after his time. What he did understand was that these instincts or drives were activated by emotion, so they were part of the unconscious.

 

The SuperEgo was also activated by emotion, but had input from the Ego, in the form of memories and learning experiences, it had input from the Id, and it had input from society, so it was the great repository of the mind. This was divided into the preconscious and the unconscious. Then Jung came along and talked about the collective unconscious, explaining that all of a specie is connected through the unconscious aspect of mind. It is my personal understanding that this is where most of the paranormal is activated. Then Blanco came along and divided the unconscious into five different levels or stratums and found that the unconscious has a logic if you remove space and time from it. Blanco divided these levels using math, but I have no idea of how that was accomplished.

 

Instead of using the iceberg analogy, let us posit that the mind is a building. People have been banging on it and trying to get inside for thousands of years. Freud comes along and finds a key that unlocks the door. He steps inside with a few friends and gets a look around, and everyone is fascinated with this impressive discovery. When he comes out, there is a great deal that he has learned, and there are other things that he can deduce because of the information acquired. But when he was inside, he saw a large elevator that went down another five or six floors. The elevator was locked, and his key would not work, so he could only take an educated guess about many of the levels, which is speculation.

 

Every history that I have read on Freud explained that he was frustrated with his inability to test his ideas in a way that would be acceptable to science. Why did he know that his efforts were not enough? Because he was a scientist, and knew what was required; he just couldn't accomplish it. On the other hand, 100 years later, with all of the advances and new equipment that we have to study brain and mind, psychology still can not accomplish it, so it seems a little unreasonable that people expected him to accomplish the impossible 100 years ago.

 

So it is my opinion that people want to get mad because he was not right about and could not prove all of his ideas, while they forget to give him credit for opening the damned door.

 

Gee

[dimreepr]

This gave me a good chuckle. People, who know me, would undoubtedly fall out of their chairs laughing at this idea, but then you don't know me.

 

 

Since you’ve missed all my previous points I’m not surprised you’ve missed this one “By this definition, then, piety can be either genuine, in that it springs from spiritual piety, or false, in that it is an attempt to exhibit the signs of piety for their own sake, or for some other reason (such as propitiation or public esteem).”; laugh all you want but my point wasn’t only about your apparent devotion to Freud.

 

I read about half of Webster's argument and was not impressed. Webster is not the most intelligent of men, my opinion, and I wonder about his motive for doing this work.

 

 

 

 

I stopped reading the wall of text at this point; I need to shop for a new irony meter.

[Strange]

I read about half of Webster's argument and was not impressed. Webster is not the most intelligent of men, my opinion,

 

You have demanded others provide references to support their opinion, yet you provide none.

 

You have also dismissed arguments you disagree with as just opinion.

 

So it seems there is no basis at all for "please considering" this post.

 

And please consider not prefixing every newly pretentious outpouring with "please consider". It provides no extra credibility to your opinions. A more honest introductory phrase might be "in my not so humble opinion" (IMNSHO).