1 2 3 4  6 7 8 16
Simon R. Hughes wrote on 28 Apr 2004:
Thus spake CyberCypher:

Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004: You ... expert on pseudoscience. Fear not. It will all become clear.

Sarcasm doesn't becomes you, Franke.

I'm not being sarcastic, Simon, only prophetic. Pseudoscience is one of Raymond's hobby horses and he knows a lot about it. He can explain it all very clearly and succinctly using parapschology as the foil that it is. And I like his explanation very much. I don't see a problem predicting that he will read the subject header and respond.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
If Raymond has already elaborated on this subject, chances are he won't respond.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
In the US, it's usually science that gets you farther but pseudoscience that gets you further.

Stuart
Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004:
If Raymond has already elaborated on this subject, chances are he won't respond.

Not true.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
Arcadian Rises wrote on 28 Apr 2004:
If Raymond has already elaborated on this subject, chances are he won't respond.

Better yet, my experience here contradicts that idea.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
that, I'm skeptical of certain aspects of psychiatry and psychology. ... point in question, I think the APA got it right.

I'm not even really sure what the "Freudian theory" is - or consists of - but I wonder at labeling ... scientific. I have no opinion on the validity of the theories. I just wonder about the use of "psuedoscience" there.

Take a look at the entry for "psychoanalysis & Sigmund Freud" in The Skeptic's Dictionary at
http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html
which begins: "Psychoanalysis is the granddaddy of all pseudoscientific psychotherapies, second only to Scientology as the champion purveyor of false and misleading claims about the mind, mental health and mental illness."
A scientific theory can be tested, and its inventors are aware of this and aware of how to set up such testing. The phlogiston theory of combustion was not a pseudoscientific theory but a scientific one because of this. But Freud basically didn't have a clue how to test his theory. Believers in psychoanalysis are like believers in a religion: No evidence can convince them to change their mind. If it were otherwise, there would no longer be any Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis, since the evidence (as the article I referenced above points out) does not support it.
There's plenty of stuff available about the pseudoscientific nature of Freud's thinking, but for starters and for a bit of a different perspective than the usual one I would recommend taking a look at Science: Good, Bad and Bogus* by Martin Gardner, in Chapter 11: "Fliess, Freud, and Biorhythm." Freud's gullible belief in Fliess's crazy theories about the nose and biorhythms reveal the low quality of Freud's reasoning capabilities. (And if you want to really get your blood boiling, read "Freud, Fliess And Emma's Nose" in *The New Age: Notes Of A Fringe Watcher by Gardner.)

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
That's exactly where the problem is. Here's AHD's summary of ... hypotheses, but did he conduct suitable experiments and draw conclusions?

Could he? It's not like observing the workings of the mind is like watching to see at what point water boils. Are the conclusions drawn by a psychiatrist subject to the same rules of scientific method as the rules of, say, a physicist?

It's subject to the scientific method, yes. If it were not, then psychology would not be a science. But even a child is capable of performing some scientific tests to demonstrate truths about psychology.

How the tests are done, and the nature of the tests, are different in different scientific disciplines, but it all falls under the rubric of "the scientific method." It is when no method can be thought of to test a hypothesis that you leave the realm of science and enter something else. For example, currently, there are aspects of superstring theory which physicists can't figure out how to test. If its not testable, it's something else, such as philosophy, rather than science, and physicists are well aware of that fact.
By the way, you'll get farther with "pseudoscience."

I faked the spelling.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
There was a controversy involving the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus at www.m-w.com . Objections were made to the word "pederast" turning ... recently verified. However, it was not given as a synonym, but appeared after "rel," meaning it was a related word.

The same firm's dictionary, of course, reports the unjustly loaded use of 'anti-Semitic'. There's nowt so queer as folk, I always say gaily.

Mike.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I'm not even really sure what the "Freudian theory" is ... discounted by other legitimate process-developed theories is no less scientific.

Freud did not use the scientific method when promulgating his theories. It doesn't look to me like what we call ... stuttering), but in general nothing too impressive has come out of that FWIU. I don't know whether "pseudoscience" is fair,

What do you mean you don't know? You just asserted that Freud didn't use scientific methods. If he didn't use scientific methods, how could you favor "pseudoscience" as an alternative description?

However, you haven't said much that convinces that Freud wasn't using a scientific approach. The term "science" must adjust for the field, and if he did what other psychiatrists did to develop theories, that's science enough.
I'll bet that your mother still disapproves of you making vague, hand-waving claims.
Show more