0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This work shows that psychoanalysis is a science because phenomenologically they both share similar absurdities. By demonstrating the absurdities of psychoanalysis and science and thus showing they are phenomenologically the same I collapse the distinction between science and non-science. This collapsing of the distinction between science and non-science is an attempt to lend weight to my claim that all classificatory systems will similarly collapse into meaninglessness as the categories which define classificatory systems themselves will collapse into absurdity
This essay is an attempt to destroy this order and introduce chaos by showing, in the case of psychoanalysis and science, the classificatory system of science non-science collapses into meaningless; since phenomenologically psychoanalysis is science. Now what can be done for psychoanalysis i.e. in showing that it is a science this essay claims, while not demonstrating the claims, can be done for all the so called pseudo-sciences such as astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, or religion etc. Similarly it is claimed what can be done for the classificatory system science non-science can be done for all classificatory system with the result that all order all structure is reduced to chaos - meaninglessness
I will show that the coherence and correspondence theories of ‘truth’ are philosophically flawed. I will argue because they are flawed their criteria of ‘truth’ lacks epistemological support; thus making any falsification done under their criteria suspect. I will also show, using examples from science and mathematics, that there are examples in each discipline where falsification of a theory has not led to its abandonment and the theory still plays an important function in all future theory construction
"Examples from mathematics and science show the theorem: contradiction, or inconsistency within and explanation as well as mutual contradiction, or incommensurability [sic] between explanations does not preclude the explanation or both explanations from being 'true'" p 3
Science is based upon the evaluation of theory in the form of being disprovable. Science works on the basis of self-criticism, of scepticism and of evaluation of data.
Now science has incidences in its history where a paradigm has not intended to and cannot predict events. A classic example is that Newtonian physics being a casual-deterministic paradigm, could not and cannot not predict the events of black-body radiation –this was left to quantum physics to do. Also Newtonian physic cannot predict the motions of three bodies in combined gravitational motion i.e. planets . Kuhn points out that no one denied that Newtonian physic was not as science because it could not predict the speed of sound, or Newton’s laws of gravitation failed to predict and account for the perigee of the moon or the motion of the moon; as he states “ no one seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long recognized discrepancies between predictions from the theory and both the speed the speed of sound and the motion of Mercury.” Now no one would say that because of these inadequacies of Newtonian physics it is not a science. In the same way even if psychoanalysis cannot predict events based on its casual-deterministic assumptions this does not invalidate it as a science just as Newtownian physics casual-deterministic assumptions could not predict events at the atomic level. Newtonian physics is completely unsuccessful at the sub-atomic level and speeds close to the speed of light and cannot be practiced there in both cases yet no one would say it is not a science In this regard there is truth in Freud’s provocative idea, when he states, “ even if psychoanalysis showed itself as unsuccessful in every other form of nervous and psychical disease as it does in delusions, it would still remain completely justified as an irreplacable instrument of scientific research. It is true that in that case we should not be in a position to practise it.”
The fact that it cannot be solved analytically for the 3 body problem doesn't mean it isn't right- just that the maths isn't up to it.The models that were used for black body radiation were not bad initiallt (apart from short wavelengths) this problem was known about, and pondering it gave rise to better models in exactly the way science should.
and pondering it gave rise to better models in exactly the way science should
What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on Yahoo Answers (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.
You are very fond of Colin Leslie Dean. Who is he and what does he do? Are you Colin Leslie Dean operating under a pseudonym?Actually, a little bit of googling gave me this, possibly biased, explanation of who he is:QuoteWhat we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on Yahoo Answers (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.Is that accurate?
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
To show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational. By reason itself all products of human reason reduce to intellectual chaos. To shatter the categories of thought, to rob all views and ideas of any epistemic worth by using reason to show that they end in stultification foolishness, or absurdity. Reason confounds reason and convicts reason by it’s own standard to unintelligibility, babble, stultification, incoherence foolishness and absurdity, or meaninglessness. Reasons critique of reason shows that there is no consistency in any product of reason, no order , no coherence only chaos and absurdity, or meaninglessness. The life-jacket, or anchor reason gives in the void of meaninglessness is broken by reason itself. Into the void of nothing reason drops us. Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity. Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
Frankly, the weak sophistry, the rambling drivel of some self-acclaimed 'philosopher', whose 'arguments' stand up to not even the most cursory of examinations - put against the works(I emphasise the word) of men which have clearly added to our physical well-being (the very internet, as has been pointed out, that this drivel is spouted upon owes it's existence to these 'myths' - does this internet exist then, or is it, too, mythical??) deserves far less attention than I have spent to type this reply.
“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.” These paradoxes where resolved by the time old expediency of mathematics by defining them away in the nineteenth century by Cauchy and Weierstrass. Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.”
In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.” Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.”
QuoteThose who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.pure sophistryreason shows its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principlesQuoteTo show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational. By reason itself all products of human reason reduce to intellectual chaos. To shatter the categories of thought, to rob all views and ideas of any epistemic worth by using reason to show that they end in stultification foolishness, or absurdity. Reason confounds reason and convicts reason by its own standard to unintelligibility, babble, stultification, incoherence foolishness and absurdity, or meaninglessness. Reasons critique of reason shows that there is no consistency in any product of reason, no order , no coherence only chaos and absurdity, or meaninglessness. The life-jacket, or anchor reason gives in the void of meaninglessness is broken by reason itself. Into the void of nothing reason drops us. Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity. Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
To show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational. By reason itself all products of human reason reduce to intellectual chaos. To shatter the categories of thought, to rob all views and ideas of any epistemic worth by using reason to show that they end in stultification foolishness, or absurdity. Reason confounds reason and convicts reason by its own standard to unintelligibility, babble, stultification, incoherence foolishness and absurdity, or meaninglessness. Reasons critique of reason shows that there is no consistency in any product of reason, no order , no coherence only chaos and absurdity, or meaninglessness. The life-jacket, or anchor reason gives in the void of meaninglessness is broken by reason itself. Into the void of nothing reason drops us. Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity. Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
if one does not believe in reason one would not use reason.
Quoteif one does not believe in reason one would not use reason.point of deans quoteisif you believe in reason then reason by its own principles will end in meaninglessness if you believe in reasonreason will show its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principles
But it doesn't. Just because somebody claims that it does, and then dallies with some semantic buffoonery, does not change the fact. And, again back tot he quote - if he does not believe in reason, is it not a paradox to argue such with reason?