Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sigmund Freud"
(→Popper) |
Tmtoulouse (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: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. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 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. [[User:Murray|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. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:08, April 27, 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)
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)