Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:23 -0400
Author: Allen Esterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was Freud a scientist?
An afterthought to the quotation from Glymour in my previous posting.
Freud himself provided an explanation for why he chose not, in Glymour's
words, to think critically, rigorously
of the advances of other scientists in
one's work, the demonstration that the theory which is generated
produces results of long-lasting and real value. Freud fails
(miserably) on all of these. So I can say with confidence that I
know scientists, and Sigmund Freud was no scientist. What he produced
were
Stephen wrote [snip]:
Interestingly, an early critic of Freud, Percival Bailey, did
conclude that Freud was a scientist, but briefly. He gave a
conference presentation titled Sigmund Freud: Scientific Period
(1873-1897). In answer to a question why he stopped so early in
Freud's career
An afterthought to the quotation from Glymour in my previous posting.
Freud himself provided an explanation for why he chose not, in Glymour's
words, to think critically, rigorously, honestly, and publicly about the
reliability of his methods after 1897. Here is what Freud wrote in On
the History
On 11 May Charles Harris explained how I came to write Rosenberg instead
of Rosenzweig:
Your unconscious motivation is laughably obvious even to
someone without any psychoanalytic training: Your unconscious
hoped to bolster the status of this supporter of psychoanalysis,
Saul Rosenberg (and
On 10 May Paul Smith wrote in response to the question Was Freud a
scientist? [snip]:
My take on the question is It's a misleading question. What
matters, of course, is not whether or not a particular person is
a scientist, but that person's use of scientific methods when
claiming
On 9 May Chris wrote [snip]:
In medicine, however, especially in the late 19th-century, the clinical
case study was a widely accepted method for providing scientific
evidence for a position (not quite the same as testing hypotheses
but that has not always been the criterion of science...
Dear TIPSTERs: I am told that a message I sent to TIPS last night may
not have gone through; hence I'm sending it again. My apologies to
listmembers for any needless duplication. Scott
Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
Chris et al.: I assume that the correspondence to which Todd refers is
the famous
At 6:38 AM -0400 5/10/05, Allen Esterson wrote:
Chris wrote:
Newton claimed not even to frame hypotheses, much less test them.
Einstein, Newton's gravitational theory nemesis [-:)], once advised you
should take no notice of what physicists say about their procedures,
instead watch what they do. In
.
Mon, 09 May 2005 19:49:51 -0400
Author: Scott Lilienfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was freud a Scientist?
Chris et al.: I assume that the correspondence to which Todd refers is
the famous 1934 exchange between the American psychologist (of
Washington University) Saul Rosenzweig (who
Allen Esterson wrote:
Please note that when I dashed down the name Saul Rosenberg instead
of Saul Rosenzweig it was not a Freudian slip (though I would be
interested to hear suggestions for my unconscious motivation had it
been such)! It was an example of a linguistic notion called
Allen Esterson wrote:
Please note that when I dashed down the name Saul Rosenberg instead
of Saul Rosenzweig it was not a Freudian slip (though I would be
interested to hear suggestions for my unconscious motivation had it
been such)!
Your unconscious motivation is laughably obvious even to
was justifiably one of the most famous scientists of his era (and, indeed,
ever since), I found myself wincing at the characterization of Freud as a
scientist. My reason for this reaction is Freud's disdain for the
scientific method, or attempts to scientifically test his theories. Freud
treated his
No.
Nancy Melucci LBCC
Huntington Beach CA
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; Freud's, not so much.
m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:28 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: Was freud a Scientist?
No.
Nancy Melucci LBCC
Huntington Beach CA
---
You are currently subscribed to tips
Hi
Yes and No. Freud was a scientist when doing his early work on
brain functioning (some of his figures are extremely prescient of
contemporary network models), but lost much of that side of his
character (probably not all) when he shifted to clinical
interests. Perhaps a model
, and the reporter characterized both as the two most famous
scientists at that time. While no one would question the idea that Einstein
was justifiably one of the most famous scientists of his era (and, indeed,
ever since), I found myself wincing at the characterization of Freud as a
scientist. My
, and the reporter characterized both as the two most famous
scientists at that time. While no one would question the idea that Einstein
was justifiably one of the most famous scientists of his era (and, indeed,
ever since), I found myself wincing at the characterization of Freud as a
scientist. My
Thanks Christopher for your very eloquent, thoughtful response to my query.
I found your points well-reasoned, and I agree with you that defining what a
scientist is necessitates taking time/context into consideration. The
question is definitely a complex one.
Allow me one correction. Christopher
or not Freud was a
scientist - I care about which of his claims are supported and which are
not.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Smith wrote:
I personally don't really care that much whether or not Freud was
a scientist - I care about which of his claims are supported and which
are not.
I suspect we are, here, mostly in agreement that, under our current
state of knowledge, Freud's explanations of various
Chris et al.: I assume that the correspondence to which Todd refers is
the famous 1934 exchange between the American psychologist (of
Washington University) Saul Rosenzweig (who passed away last year) and
Sigmund Freud. Rosenzweig sent Freud a description of some
experimental work he had
22 matches
Mail list logo
