Is psychoanalysis a science or philosophy?

Attached: mondays.jpg (960x958, 140K)

yes they can, what do you mean?

it's neither, it's a bugmen repellent

Scam

Do you think philosophy is negated by praxis?

Isn't the neurotic urban dwelling semite generally considered to be the bug-man archetype?

>The hypotheses are neither scientific nor philosophical.
accurate, they're more like religious

maybe in a certain sense I do, but not in a sense in any way related to psychoanalysis
freud just got demolished by /r/atheism

If you assert things about reality, but you refuse to let them be tested empirically, and you maintain that it's not philosophy, then it's religion.

hypotheses are hypotheses. they're suppositions, not assertions. and you're free to put on your lab coat and test whatever you please. it's not like psychoanalysts hold their hypotheses hostage, chained to the wall in a basement below the IPA headquaters or something.

>hypotheses are hypotheses. they're suppositions, not assertions
Jesus how pathetic. they are definitely assertions, Ive read Freud, he asserts things constantly

You've avoided what I actually said, which is that if you have a set of statements about how the mind works, and you're not testing them empirically, and you don't let people argue with their philosophical merits, then it is literally just a received religion.

karl popper wasn't a scientist freud was

how do you test how a mind works?

As of now we can't. We can concoct theories and try to find phenomenological evidence for them or we can try to link brain functions to conscious experience.

Attached: no lasagna no hope.jpg (680x680, 56K)

Why walk when you can ride?

>Ive read Freud, he asserts things constantly
No, he puts forward hypotheses constantly. If you mistakenly read them as something other than hypotheses then that's on you.

>if you have a set of statements about how the mind works, and you're not testing them empirically, and you don't let people argue with their philosophical merits, then it is literally just a received religion
No, it's not. You have a rather infantile view of what constitues a religion. And besides, the hypotheses are constantly contested and argued about. You think Lacan or Klein favoured the exact same set of hypotheses that were put forward by Freud?

A hypothesis in science is tested, you're dishonestly using the word in a field that doesn't test its 'hypotheses', making it meaningless.

The hypotheses are not argued with, Freud did not permit people to question them, and psychoanalysis as an institution responds to people disagreeing with them by diagnosing them with mental illnesses.

The comparison to religion is compeltely apt, since faith is used in both, and a sense of 'it made my life better to believe it'. Whenever you ask someone about psychoanalysis they respond first with hostility when asked to explain why they believe it, and then end up saying something like 'it helped me'.

I never said they were scientific hypotheses. From my very first post:
>The hypotheses are neither scientific nor philosophical. They are psychoanalytic.

>The hypotheses are not argued with
You're only showing off your blatant ignorance. Check out Lacan, Klein, Object-relations theory, Ego-psychology. Differences between them would've been impossible if your claim about the impossibility of disagreement about psychoanalytic hypotheses were correct.

>Whenever you ask someone about psychoanalysis they respond first with hostility
You're not particularly good at hiding the fact that your questions are posed in bad faith and that you haven't made a slightest effort at understanding the subject before trying to take it down using childish reddit rhetorics. Hostility is the correct reponse here, you cretine.

Im explaining to you why your use of hypothesis is retarded.
Freud did not permit people to disagree with him, this is just a historical fact.
'bad faith' is something people say when they are fucking shit at defending their positions, as you are

>I'm explaining
sure thing buddy

I explained it pretty clearly, the entire use of the word hypothesis in science is that it is a tentative which is then confirmed or not by testing. Using the word for psychoanalytic theories that are not tested, and that can't really be questioned, is just a dishonest attempt to steal the merited respect that the word hypothesis lends, the connotation of not asserting without evidence.

Nobody cares how it's used in science. The word "hypothesis" doesn't merit any special respect, except for people whose brain is warped by all the sessions of group masturbation to quotes of Stephen Hawking they've had with their reddit buddies. The dictionary definition of a hypothesis identifies it as a supposition based on limited amount of evidence, and that's just what psychoanalytic hypotheses are, the limited amount of evidence being derived from their clinical practice.

>a supposition based on limited amount of evidence,
except it's not
>the limited amount of evidence being derived from their clinical practice.
it is not derived from this, and Freud specifically laughed at the idea that there had to be rigorous empirical testing of his theories.

The clinical practice is done with the theories in mind, which makes the results necessarily conform with it.

both since there isn't a clear distinction beyond how academia is divided

Both two motherfucker should defined what is your version of "hypothesis" is
So please define what hypothesis is before opening the hellhole

define define

He laughed at the idea because he specifically tried to produce scientific psychoanalytic hypotheses and then gave that project up once he realized that it was impossible to address the problems he was interested in with hypotheses that would be "rigorously empirically testable".
The initial theories he worked with that came from someone else were quickly dismissed by him once it turned out in the clinic that there weren't sufficiently accurate. His new hypotheses were derived from that clinical experience, and they were continually revised throughout his lifetime based on further clinical experience.

I didn't feel the need to define it since I only use the common sense of the word, which is sufficiently well captured by the dictionary definition.

Attached: file.png (607x129, 15K)

>what is rationalism

>His new hypotheses were derived from that clinical experience, and they were continually revised throughout his lifetime based on further clinical experience.
I wouldnt call this 'totally worthless' but it still completely resembles religion, which is not totally useless either. People fix their minds to a large degree by becoming religious through the same kind of trial and error approach using concepts like sin, soul, etc. which are the counterpart to the concepts of psychoanalysis, since neither have anything like real evidence for their existence.

Do you know focusing on common sense at the term is actually a logical fallacy?

a petitio principii

I understand. A lot of stuff resembled religion for me too when I was in high school. Keep looking into things and maybe your perspective will mature.

What do you mean by "focusing"? I hope it's not the common sense of the term!
As for me, I'm not focusing on anything. I just wanted to clarify that all the words I used I used without assigning any special meaning to them. I would love to hear what the "fallacy" here is.

>Keep looking into things and maybe your perspective will mature.
lol once again a psychoanalytic proponent absolutely fails to defend why he even believes what he believes and resorts to lame insults

Just to clarify for you, having believed something was true in highschool is not actually an argument for it not being true. Shocking revelation

Defend from what? You absolutely failed to attack anything and then you resorted to lame provocations like this one.

>Just to clarify for you, having believed something was true in highschool is not actually an argument for it not being true.
No shit!

I explained to you the similarity between religious thinking and psychoanalysis and how they differ from science or philosophy. I explained it like 3 times very clearly.

You haven't even attempted to explain why you think the field has any value at all

lmao

Sure, and I'm saying that there's nothing in what you wrote that merits a serious response.

>You haven't even attempted to explain why you think the field has any value at all
Why would I? I came into this thread to answer the question posed in the OP, not to defend psychoanalysis as valuable before someone like you.

>there's nothing in what you wrote that merits a serious response.
lmao the answer of psychoanalysis to every criticism. At least it's better than calling the criticism evidence of mental illness

God why are you all to a person this fucking bad at thinking and arguing

Did you just read Freud once and never move on to Jung or something?

also you in fact replied to me, I didn't reply to your post, so you did post in order to defend the theory against my calling it religion

Attached: freud quote.jpg (960x720, 47K)

“They don’t realize we’re bringing them the plague.” -Freud, to Jung on arrival in New York

No, I posted in order to mock you calling it religion.

I wonder what it says about your psyche that you expend effort on mockery and posting about a subject, but are utterly incapable of defending your belief in the subject.

>Is psychoanalysis a science or philosophy?
Medicine is neither science or philosophy, but a practice.
It is based, or SHOULD be based, on science, because the scientific method is one of the most consistent methods we have to acquire knowledge.

Having said that, psychoanalysis is more superstition that anything else.

I only bothered because I was already posting to answer another question, but I don't know, what does it say? And what does you projecting your impotence on me say?

I actually explained my position, you refused to. I even said that psychoanalysis might benefit its practitioners the same way religion does. Though there isn't much evidence of either, since again both refuse any real empirical testing

It's a talking cure, its essentially no different from catholic confession or AA meetings. A non-judgemental, impartial space which allows you to verbalise things you wouldn't otherwise feel comfortable saying. It's not scientific or philosophical, its psychosocial. It's why you can't really psychoanalyse yourself, you need an analyst for transference to occur.

why did this make me laugh so hard

It's masturbation. At best, it's an art.

What if the observation of a object effects said object?