Lia's Chart/Road Towards Imposition.

[Irish]

Hasn't Freud and Jung been discredited many times in the psychological world?

 

Also to clear it up, I'm able to do that kind of thing 'cause I'm just that good doho~

[mouse_]

Jung is still very relevant in analytical psychology... it's just that analytical psychology doesn't really receive any attention any more. It's too soft a science...impossible to prove (or disprove). Brain activity and questionnaires and cognitive tests are easier to quantify...and so modern psychology was born.

 

In my opinion, the study of subjective experience requires a subjective science...

[Aviar]

So religion now should count as science too? Also the key to all this is Science, anyone can state that some event is due to anything, the part that is important are the experiments which define that thing.

 

Also Irish, I am sure it has been shown to be a flawed model in some respects, but they are still the most widely known and accepted models. If you have any other models which you believe to be more scientifically accepted or proven, please feel free to link them.

[mouse_]

So religion now should count as science too? Also the key to all this is Science, anyone can state that some event is due to anything, the part that is important are the experiments which define that thing.

I don't remember saying that. I'd ask you to remember that almost all of 'Science' is based off of faulty premises or assumptions -- physics for example: "an object in motion stays in motion". The "object" in question doesn't really exist... it's just a collection of atoms. But we treat it as an entity -- an assumption, a simplification -- which is inherently incorrect. And look how far physics took us.

 

That's exactly what OP was doing. So some neurons firing in his brain makes up his consciousness...etc. And we're making some massive simplifications, and assuming it works the same for everyone (which it probably doesn't), looking at it on a macro scale... and drawing conclusions. What part of this do you have a problem with?

[Aviar]

I don't remember saying that. I'd ask you to remember that almost all of 'Science' is based off of faulty premises or assumptions -- physics for example: "an object in motion stays in motion". The "object" in question doesn't really exist... it's just a collection of atoms. But we treat it as an entity -- an assumption, a simplification -- which is inherently incorrect. And look how far physics took us.

 

That's exactly what OP was doing. So some neurons firing in his brain makes up his consciousness...etc. And we're making some massive simplifications, and assuming it works the same for everyone (which it probably doesn't), looking at it on a macro scale... and drawing conclusions. What part of this do you have a problem with?

There are axioms, yes, which are considered so simple that they require no proof. However, hypothesis are generally supported by experiments, after all, physics is meant to represent reality in a controllable way. As far as an object as a conjunction of atoms, quantum physics attempts to find the laws that model interactions at that level. Also, I have no problem, it simply contradicts concepts within Psychology, and I am pointing that out. As to macro and micro orientations, I think this is more about psychological and physiological approaches.

[mouse_]

There are axioms, yes, which are considered so simple that they require no proof. However, hypothesis are generally supported by experiments, after all, physics is meant to represent reality in a controllable way. As far as an object as a conjunction of atoms, quantum physics attempts to find the laws that model interactions at that level. Also, I have no problem, it simply contradicts concepts within Psychology, and I am pointing that out. As to macro and micro orientations, I think this is more about psychological and physiological approaches.

 

My point was that science by nature is a flawed process, and that lack of experiments doesn't invalidate it. All we have in analytic psychology are observations, and I thought we were doing a pretty nice job of it.

 

The reason I brought up the macro/micro thing: I thought, since you were saying we weren't doing real 'Science', you were appealing to the physiological side of modern Psychology (the 'harder' half)... and I tried to point out that the physiological side and the subjective side can coexist without contradiction. But I misread that... you were appealing to Freud?

 

I guess if you want to believe Freud, I can't stop you.

Sorry OP I'll gtfo now