> I'm unfamiliar with his actual position on anecdotal evidence vs > scientific evidence -- clearly the former does not meet the rigors of > the latter -- but I'd have to add that anecdotal evidence can at times > be more revealing and insightful than pure scientific evidence, and it > is those revelations and insights that eventually lead to the hard > science that proves them.
I agree with the last part of that, but not the first. Yes, anecdotal evidence often comprises the revelations and insights that prompt scientific investigation. But that doesn't make "soft" evidence "more revealing and insightful than pure scientific evidence." The fact of the matter is, the insights we have don't really count for anything unless they're backed up by scientific evidence. There have been tons of brilliant-sounding insights, but unless they're found to work in reality, their utility is in producing enjoyment through philosophy and literature. There's a reason why scientists today generally wouldn't write a paper telling a story about anecdotal evidence. Rather, if you have a really cool insight, based on anecdote or any other "soft" evidence, you would first test it, and publish it only if it turns out to be true. Any creative thinker is going to have lots of bright ideas, some of which will turn out to be right or useful, and some of which will turn out to be wrong. What surprises me about Freud is that he really seemed to have convinced himself that his soft evidence was scientific evidence, when he should have known better. If he was having all these cool intuitive insights - and I agree with all the posters who've pointed out that Freud was, possibly, fairly prescient on a couple of things, like the importance of sex - he should have tested them and then published them. Instead, he created a pseudoscience. He should have known better. This was 1900, not 1300 before the scientific method was invented. On Apr 12, 12:57 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Apr 11, 8:21 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> > wrote: ..." > > > For someone (Freud) who was schooled in, and so > > good at, the rigors of the scientific method, it's surprising that he > > came to believe that anecdotal evidence qualified as scientific > > evidence. > > I'm unfamiliar with his actual position on anecdotal evidence vs > scientific evidence -- clearly the former does not meet the rigors of > the latter -- but I'd have to add that anecdotal evidence can at times > be more revealing and insightful than pure scientific evidence, and it > is those revelations and insights that eventually lead to the hard > science that proves them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
