At 10:45 AM -0600 11/25/07, Beth Benoit wrote: >From today's New York Times: ><http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref > >And a tip of the hat to Scott Lilienfeld...
As it should be (except in History of Psychology classes). In other words, Freud's word exists currently as a literary metaphor. The article talks about lack of empirical verification as one of the main problems. Before you have empirical verification you must have specific testable predictions (hypotheses). Until Freudian (neoFreudian, postFreudian, whatever) theory can attain any sort of scientific status it must be restated in a way that makes specific predictions possible. -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * ---
