Anonymous asked: Why do you detest Freud?
Because I’ve studied Psychology.
Freud’s theories are unscientific, they’re untestable, they’re prone to circular reasoning, and are just… well, nonsense. He got the idea for his theory of the unconscious because he didn’t believe a patient when she told him her father had molested her, his reasoning was ‘a man would never do that, that must be repressed sexual fantasies.’ The vast majority of his so called clinical assessments are useless, because again - they’re based on nonsense. Thanks to him the general public to have this very misinformed view of psychology and as a result he’s set the science back because people assume that all of it is as wishy-washy and unfounded as the theories of a cocaine addict with a mother fixation.
Agree 100% and I think his theories, such as they are, actually continue to set back physiological progress to this day.
I may have once rolled my eyes when a professor mentioned we were going to study Freud and then giggled because I thought she was joking when she said she was a firm believer in Freudian analysis.
She didn’t really like me….
I took a psychology class at a community college in rural NC taught by a badass feminist army veteran. We got to the chapter on Freud and she literally said: “We’re not going to study this because it’s bullshit.” We spent exactly one class discussing why it was bullshit, then moved on to study the scientific method, Milgram and Harlow, and the development of ethical standards in the field of psychology. That is what Freud is to people who actually understand his contribution to the field: a gateway into discussing the way ideas become scientific theories and the ethics surrounding the development of said theories.
Because it’s not science if you literally say, “I don’t trust this woman because lol hysterical vagina syndrome, here’s the only misogynistic explanation for what’s going on, she is totes envious of the penis, haha, fact.”
I’m so glad I’m not the only person who recognizes this
#freud is truly full of shit#i can’t deny that he certainly set the foundation for psychology#but we can’t take him seriously anymore
I had to read so much Freud in grad school for educational psychology. Let that shit sink in. Worst class ever.
feenomeena asked: So I see your post about Evolution with NDT. But Joe. You have to undrstand, as the devils advocate right now (being me), how do you explain the semantics of this argument. If it is fact, why not call it so. Gravity isnt a theory. It is a law because it is observable. The Law of gravity. The laws of thermodynamics. These arent theories, they are postulates. Why if the scientific community is forthforward about gravity, cant they accept it as fact as with these other observable laws?
(FYI, we’re talking about this post)
Thanks for being the devil’s advocate. Nobody ever stands up for that guy!
You ask an important question about the difference between a scientific theory, a scientific fact, and a scientific law, and in doing so you may have inadvertently caught a mistake in Cosmos. We’ll get to that, but first, let’s untangle these confusing terms.
A scientific theory begins life as a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is born when an observation comes together with a possible explanation in the womb of the mind. That hypothesis is fed further observations, and if all remains correct, one day it grows up into a theory. The more a theory can explain, the stronger it is. It can be modified or proven wrong by future observations. What is special about a theory is that it ultimately allows us to predict what will happen and also explain why it is happening.
A scientific law is fairly similar to a theory, except that it doesn’t explain the why. Let’s take the Law of Gravity as an example. It has been incredibly well supported by observation,and it has been revised over time to adapt to new observations (like spacetime), but nothing about the Law of Gravity explains why gravity does its gravitational things. We usually capitalize them because it makes them look more important.
A scientific fact, the way I interpret it (its philosophical definition has been debated many times), is an observation that no one has been able to disprove and that we expect two people would observe in exactly the same way regardless of when or where or how they observed it. For instance, it is a scientific fact that the jellyfish green fluorescent protein emits light at a wavelength of 509 nm when it is excited by 395 nm light. This is just a thing that happens. It is an observation that can then be applied to a more general theory of fluorescence. Got it? Good.
So what is evolution? It’s a scientific theory. It is a thing that we can see happening (yes, I mean actually observe it happening) and it also allows us to explain why it is happening. The theory of evolution encompasses all the chemistry of DNA, the random action of mutations, and the mathematics of selection. It’s a what and a why.
What about gravity? Why did Neil call it a “theory”? Here’s the mistake in Cosmos that I think you’ve identified. He shouldn’t have called gravity a theory. It’s a law. We know a lot about the what of gravity, from how mass interacts at a distance to curvatures in the fabric of spacetime, but we don’t know why gravity gravities. So you’re right that gravity is a law. Neil was wrong, at least on this week’s show.
By this time you’re all probably thinking “Joe, this is a load of semantic bulls**t!!" You are absolutely right. It is a load of semantic bulls**t. It’s actually the very definition of semantics, the study of meaning. I’d forgive some of you for thinking this is all a worthless waste of verbal and cognitive energy, because what’s wrong with just saying something is or isn’t?
Well, that all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
There is now a measles outbreak in New York. A whole ward of cancer patients currently undergoing chemotherapy have been exposed to it. Imagine fighting cancer for years only to die because some jackass didn’t vaccinate their brat and you caught measles.
STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PARENTS
Yes my mother us a stupid piece if shit for not vaccinating me and my brother for diseases that barely exist.
How about you keep your nose out of shit that doesn’t concern you because the way a parent raises their child and what they chose to put in that child’s body is none of your concern.
I will not vaccinate my kids because I know what’s in those vaccinations. So call me a stupid piece of shit, but I don’t see any of you parenting MY kids or anyone else’s kids. So stay the fuck out of shit that isn’t any of your business
Not gonna be an ass but I was curious as to what you think is in vaccines and why you’re not going to use them?
The studies that linked vaccines to Autism/horrible things have been proven fraudulent and have cost a LOT of people their lives because it’s allowed the spread of things like Measles (which isn’t a barely existing disease, really)
Omfg it IS our business because we’re the HERD part of HERD IMMUNITY
Immunocompromized people are dying because of your stupid-ass decisions
Your choices kill people that’s why we care how is this hard to understand
Yes, people who don’t vaccinate their kids are stupid pieces of shit, because not only are they endangering their own children (which makes them shitty parents), they’re endangering other people.
"Diseases that barely exist" …yeah they barely exist because of vaccination programs.
Yes, my mother is a stupid piece of shit for not vaccinating me.
And yes, I am a stupid piece of shit for not realizing before my late twenties what “honey, we started taking you to a homeopathic doctor when you were two!” meant in the way of incomplete immunization cycles. I’m going in soon to get tested for antibodies and then I plan to get vaccinated for the ones I don’t have, because, and let me spell this out for you in no uncertain terms, I don’t want to be responsible for someone else dying.
Measles are coming back. We’ve had a few outbreaks of whooping cough over the last few years. Herd immunity doesn’t just protect people whose parents were idiotic enough to listen to Wakefield, it protects people who are too young, or allergic to eggs, or for some other reason unable to vaccinate against diseases which could easily kill them.
News flash: “how I raise my kids is none of your business” stops being a valid argument as soon as you’re putting other people’s safety at risk.
"I will not vaccinate my kids because I know what’s in those vaccinations. So call me a stupid piece of shit"
You are worse than a stupid piece of shit. You’re literally putting people’s lives at risk because you believe some bunk science scare-tactic about vaccinations.
Dumb fucking ass backwards god damn anti-science shit heads. Fuck all of them.