tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393674883919724980.post6239486165053146140..comments2023-07-16T10:42:00.694+01:00Comments on Psycho: Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12201420056461492643noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393674883919724980.post-67204960728816562292010-02-12T23:28:02.465+00:002010-02-12T23:28:02.465+00:00Last point - there are quite a few valid hypothese...Last point - there are quite a few valid hypotheses in cognitive psychology, social psychology, behaviourism, etc. which explain things in their own limited scope. <br /><br />It is true, as you said, that no other psychological theory explains everything that psychoanlysis does. But my point is that psychoanalysis doesn't actually explain anything, only itself.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12359815137627093547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393674883919724980.post-52429934796011789692010-02-12T23:22:48.618+00:002010-02-12T23:22:48.618+00:00Peter, as promised, my view of psychoanalysis - it...Peter, as promised, my view of psychoanalysis - it's not original by any means : <br /><br />***Warning - rant ahead !***<br /><br />In the past, scientific enquiry consisted of raising an hypothesis and then trying to establish its validity through experimentation and observation - the more evidence was accumulated, the more valid it was considered to be. This was called induction. <br /><br />Of course, the problem with induction is that for some theories, every observation conviniently prove its validity - even conflicting ones ! See astrology as a good example of this. <br /><br />Along came Karl Popper and raised the point that the empirical falsifiability of a theory should be a principle tenant of scientific enquiry, meaning, there must be an observation which could prove that it's false, at least for a certain scope. For example, relativity does not apply for the quantum world theory, and therefore its limits can be determined, and ultimately can be replaced by a better theory which accounts for a larger scope and more types of phenomena. This in fact makes it a good theory, since we know that at least for this limited scope, it actually describes, explains, predicts and even allows us to control things to an extent, and we can be confident that it does, for a specific scope. <br /><br />This essentially means that in scientific enquiry we accept the fact the we are dealing with epistomological truth, not ontological - we can't actually figure it all out, and never will while in this universe and within this finite existence. <br /><br />Psychoanalysis speaks in terms which cannot be quantified, measured, detected, etc., and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory of any sorts. It cannot be falsified; if I was raised a certain way, which means I should behave in a certain way, but I'm in fact not acting this way, then I'm repressing it; if it's not repression, then it's sublimation; etc. There's an explanation for every outcome, and so it can never be refuted under any observation. <br /><br />This is NOT to say that psychanalysis does not make valuable insights into the human psyche. However, as a theory which attempts to describe human behaviour, let alone explain, predict, or even help to control it, it cannot make a claim to be scietifically valid in any way.<br /><br />Rant over...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12359815137627093547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393674883919724980.post-79429663704682845542010-02-06T17:32:40.245+00:002010-02-06T17:32:40.245+00:00crimplene and moustaches — a time it's hard to...crimplene and moustaches — a time it's hard to see revived but you never know, i guess . . . in fact, i don't really remember anyone looking like that/dressing like that at the time — maybe i moved in the wrong circles — i found the guitarist's expressions as intriguing as her technique — boredom, irritation, superciliousness, pride, resignation, they all flicker across her face — i suspect the cheque never even made it to the postAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12201420056461492643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393674883919724980.post-27977498238236466782010-02-06T10:46:58.066+00:002010-02-06T10:46:58.066+00:00Look forward to it all. And thanks for the fun:&#...Look forward to it all. And thanks for the fun:'Trousers that move with you' - great. When I move, I'm always leaving mine behind.<br />And I see I've been playing the guitar the wrong way up.<br />Where would I be without your lifestyle tips?Lo Jardinierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228490660541973229noreply@blogger.com