Text 1264, 114 rader
Skriven 2004-12-31 10:55:00 av Ekurtz99 (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: DebunkingCementig
=============================


 > "EKurtz99" <EKurtz99@TwilightZone.com> wrote
>> His [Popper's] criterion of falsifiability was intended to separate what
>> he regarded as pseudoscience (Marxism, Freudian theory, astrology) from 
>> real
>> science (of which physics was the Jewel in the Crown)
>>
"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> This has been an on-the-whole nice and lucid
> 'philosophy of sciencical' discussion.
>
> Even so, I would like to voice my dislike of something
> to do with what you chose to write; because it has an effect
> as would an ignorantly placed conduit - one that maintains
> (or facilitates further cognitive cementation) of a
> falsely assumptive association.
> Specifically, the association that
> holds Freud's theorizing as being as untrue
> or scientifically unsupported as astrology.

Since this is the first post by you that I actually understood, I will make 
some effort to reply to it:
The association of Marxism and Freudian theory with astrology was not my 
doing, but Popper's; to quote from the article I referenced:

QUOTE
The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory 
true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished 
to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that 
science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the 
truth.

I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that 
science is distinguished from pseudoscience-or from "metaphysics"-by its 
empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from 
observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I 
often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely 
empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method - that 
is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and 
experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The 
latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of 
empirical evidence based on observation - on horoscopes and on biographies.

But as it was not the example of astrology which lead me to my problem, I 
should perhaps briefly describe the atmosphere in which my problem arose and 
the examples by which it was stimulated. After the collapse of the Austrian 
empire there had been a revolution in Austria: the air was full of 
revolutionary slogans and ideas, and new and often wild theories. Among the 
theories which interested me Einstein's theory of relativity was no doubt by 
far the most important. The three others were Marx's theory of history, 
Freud's psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler's so-called "individual 
psychology."

snip

It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied 
with these three theories-the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, 
and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to 
scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, "What is 
wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they 
so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory, and especially 
from the theory of relativity?"

To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time 
would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein's theory of 
gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those three 
other theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it 
that I nearly felt mathematical physics to be more exact than sociological 
or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the 
problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or 
measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, 
though posing as science, had in fact more in common with primitive myths 
than with science; ***that they resembled astrology rather than 
astronomy***.
END QUOTE
Conjectures and Refutations (1963)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

I made no reference to Adler's theories since they are now no more than a 
footnote to history.
If you read the whole article you will see *why* he finds a resemblence 
between astrology and Freud.

>
> [Apropos which, Marx theorizing was a
> pattern-recognizing pursuit/preoccupation that
> resulted in a compelling but gravely deficient model
> of the socioeconomic aspect of (What Is going on
> in the realm of) human activities. As it happened
> this deficiency can be defined (rather precisely) as the
> the field of philosophical and scientific
> (practically and systematically experimental)
> inquiry that Freud fumbled in - and did so with
> a fair amount of success.
> It deserve to be judged as "fair" (or better) considering
> all his constraints: That is, his (approximately understandable) internal
> "blockages" and biases, and the, the (to his efforts contemporary)
> 'rudimentary state' of relevant sciences at the time. (Of course 
> especially
> the field of Neurobiology.)]

You've lost me again.

> That's all I needed to get off my chest. :-)
>
> Cheers
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/31/04 10:55:00 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)