this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
487 points (98.0% liked)

memes

10648 readers
3285 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow
The_Picard_Maneuver
[email protected]
487
Oedipus Complex (lemmy.zip)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/memes
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The history of psychology is wild.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dipshit 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

To be more specific, Jung's psychology has been characterized as "unscientific" on the following grounds:

  • that some Jungian concepts, such as archetypes and synchronicity, cannot be proven by the scientific method
  • that Jung subscribed to a nineteenth-century notion of evolution that has since been discredited
  • that Jung's valuation of the mental functions of feeling and intuition on the same level as thinking weakens the attitude of rational objectivity that is essential in scientific research
  • that Jung's interest in occult traditions, including the pre-scientific European past (third-century Gnosticism and medieval alchemy) and contemporary Asian cultures (Taoism and Tibetan Buddhism) amounts to a glorification of mysticism and irrationality
  • that Jung's clinical specialization in the treatment of schizophrenia and his own brush with psychosis made him an untrustworthy guide to "ordinary" reality

https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/the-unscientific-nature-of-jungs-psychology.html

[–] Tangent5280 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the explanation.

[–] Bondrewd -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is only 10% of the article dipshit. Some of these points are only theorized to be the case.

Also, I find it kind of funny. Scientific method is just a model with its own flaws and is bound to faliure in certain fields as all models do.

[–] dipshit 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You aren’t much of a thinker, are ya?

[–] Bondrewd 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

🤷‍♀️

[–] dipshit 1 points 10 months ago

how do you feel about who has the burden of proof? the person claiming the thing or someone saying there is no evidence to suggest that the claim is correct?