if you have read anything related to Freud, you would know that his theories are the basics, not the “end all” for psychoanalysis
and no, it is not a pseudoscience, but it is also not a perfect method
but since it was one of the first modern ideas and techniques, it has some validity on which to build
well to answer this question it’s going to get wordy. and in the end I’m not sure how much it really matters. But to be technically science I believe it must follow the scientific method, and all the ID , ego, and superego business does do that, in a way. It’s what he believed to explain the world around him , though not something that can necessarily be proved. It’s more psychology than anything else, but I’d call it a science , sure.
I don’t think the dichotomy of ‘science’ and ‘pseudoscience’ is particularly helpful in looking at psychanalysis.
I think Freud would have said that there was a theory behind his work, (the topographical model of the mind and later the structural model of the mind). I think he saw his scientific method as the interpretation of the patient’s free associations, in order to reveal the content of their unconscious.
However, as a retired psychotherapist, (not a psychoanalist), I would say that psychoanalysis is made up of elements of science, elements of the arts, and elements of relationship.
Wikipedia has quite a good article on Freud and psychoanalysis if you are really interested.
It is more a treatment modality rather that a science. that it is a means of analysis of an individuals conflicts or emotional distress. It is not a means of testing and research that uses the scientific method to replicate results. Freud himself discussed his theory as a means of easing emotional pain and fostering healing.
Fred M said,
Wrote on October 27, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
you must be a scientologist
if you have read anything related to Freud, you would know that his theories are the basics, not the “end all” for psychoanalysis
and no, it is not a pseudoscience, but it is also not a perfect method
but since it was one of the first modern ideas and techniques, it has some validity on which to build
joeanimal said,
Wrote on October 27, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
its physcodelic science!!!
prescribed by Dr. Timothy Leary!!
joshyboy727 said,
Wrote on October 27, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
well to answer this question it’s going to get wordy. and in the end I’m not sure how much it really matters. But to be technically science I believe it must follow the scientific method, and all the ID , ego, and superego business does do that, in a way. It’s what he believed to explain the world around him , though not something that can necessarily be proved. It’s more psychology than anything else, but I’d call it a science , sure.
Tillylu said,
Wrote on October 27, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
I don’t think the dichotomy of ‘science’ and ‘pseudoscience’ is particularly helpful in looking at psychanalysis.
I think Freud would have said that there was a theory behind his work, (the topographical model of the mind and later the structural model of the mind). I think he saw his scientific method as the interpretation of the patient’s free associations, in order to reveal the content of their unconscious.
However, as a retired psychotherapist, (not a psychoanalist), I would say that psychoanalysis is made up of elements of science, elements of the arts, and elements of relationship.
Wikipedia has quite a good article on Freud and psychoanalysis if you are really interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
Hope this helps
luvsLA said,
Wrote on October 27, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
It is more a treatment modality rather that a science. that it is a means of analysis of an individuals conflicts or emotional distress. It is not a means of testing and research that uses the scientific method to replicate results. Freud himself discussed his theory as a means of easing emotional pain and fostering healing.