Karl Popper considered Marxism and Freudianism to be pseudoscience.
Popper was also profoundly impressed by the differences between the allegedly “scientific” theories of Freud and Adler and the revolution effected by Einstein’s theory of Relativity in physics in the first two decades of the twentieth century. The main difference between them, as Popper saw it, was that while Einstein’s theory was highly “risky”, in the sense that it was possible to deduce consequences from it which were, in the light of the then dominant Newtonian physics, highly improbable (e.g., that light is deflected towards solid bodies—confirmed by Eddington’s experiments in 1919), and which would, if they turned out to be false, falsify the whole theory, nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories. They were, Popper argues, “simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behaviour which could contradict them” (1963: 37). As such, they have more in common with myths than with genuine science; “They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form” (1963: 38). What is apparently the chief source of strength of psychoanalysis, he concluded, viz. its capability to accommodate and explain every possible form of human behaviour, is in fact a critical weakness, for it entails that it is not, and could not be, genuinely predictive.
Marxism:
Popper also considers that contemporary Marxism also lacks scientific status. Unlike psychoanalysis, he argues, Marxism had been initially scientific, in that it was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserts, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma. As he sees it, the Hegelian dialectic was adopted by Marxists not to oppose dogmatism but to accommodate it to their cause by eliminating the possibility of contradictory evidence. It has thus become what Popper terms “reinforced dogmatism” (1963: 334).
These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific.
Disagree. Both economics and sociology are capable of making falsifiable predictions. Most of econometrics is devoted to hypothesis testing. Political science covers a wider ground, but parts of it are statistical.
Is it meaningful to speak of harder sciences and softer sciences? I believe so. But it’s also meaningful to speak of softer sciences and pseudo-sciences. Can Freudianism and Marxism be investigated scientifically? I think so. But that sort of thing is different than the dogmatic approaches favored during the mid 20th century.
As for predictions, characterizing the properties of populations is often easier than predicting the path of individual components, such as flecks of dust on water.
You’re comparing individual components against statistical properties. Properly, you should only compare individual to individual and statistical to statistical.
Also, both hard hard and soft sciences have events that bust models, like black holes and black swans.
I have thought that the Oedipus Complex was crap. Various therapists and psychiatrists have told me that I was not qualified to make that judgement or that I was in denial about my urges to kill my father and have sex with my mother.
A few years ago, some of Freud’s private writings were published. When he discovered that some of his young patients were being repeatedly molested by their fathers. These men were wealthy and high social standing. Freud concluded that if he reported them to the police or exposed them to the public, they would take revenge by ending his career. So, Freud invented the Oedipus Complex and the Electra Complex. He told the patients that these were not memories of actual events. They were manifestations of their subconscious desires.
So a central idea of Freudian psychoanalysis (arguably the central idea) was something he knew from the beginning to be false.
If I were betting, I’d say that the tales (which extends into the modern era btw) of long lasting ball lightning that passed through glass, flew around for minutes, before landing in a bucket of water and making it boil are going to be wild exaggerations. The result of stories getting more wild with each retelling.
However, until we actually have a confirmed model, all bets remain off. I wouldn’t say it’s out of the question that one of the more fantabulous claims might turn out to be true.
What we need is an encyclopedia of woo published more than 30 years ago. We can then ascertain whether any of the described phenomenon holds up under retrospective scrutiny.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Dope, I dub this entire 33 volume set to be woo:
Mysteries of the Unknown is a series of books about the paranormal, published on the North-American home market by Time-Life Books from 1987 through 1992. Each book focused on a different topic, such as ghosts, UFOs, psychic powers and dreams. Book titles included The UFO Phenomenon, Witches and Witchcraft, Hauntings, and more.[1] According to the LinkedIn page of Tom Corry, Time-Life’s then-Vice President of Product Management (1984–90) and under whose auspices the series was launched, it was “the largest selling book series Time-Life ever produced.”[2]…
The Enchanted World series had already set in motion Time-Life Books’ trend towards more sensationalism away from the hitherto soberly and scientifically written publications, the publisher was until then renowned for. Mysteries of the Unknown though, took it up a notch and the actual “The Editors of Time-Life Books” content writers/creators resented their management for it…
Somewhere on the high seas, I obtained a copy of volume 7, “Mysterious Creatures”. I’m beginning to think that woo is a state of mind, a credulous one. The authors report what was known at the time about creatures fictional (eg the kraken), scientific (the coelancanth), the usual (yeti, bigfoot, the Loch Ness resident), and the cinematic (Atomic Ants); I suppose they think it’s all good insofar as it all provides a charge or sensation.
I strongly object to including The Enchanted World series as woo. I have acquired most of that series over the decades. The series is mythology, legend and folk lore excellently retold and gorgeously illustrated. The stories are no more presented as true and factual than in D’aulaires Book Of Greek Myths.
I remember the ads for Mysteries Of The Unknown. I briefly had a few of the books people had bought for me at flea markets and such. The stories in these books are presented as true and factual. These books are definitely woo.
If that’s the standard of woo then almost everything in this thread fits. I had books on the paranormal as a kid that had a picture of, say, uri geller staring at a bent key, or bigfoot, on the cover, then inside included stuff like ball lightning and giant squid.
Those books are just grab bags of topics, with the only criteria being: “interesting” and “no agreed scientific explanation / description yet” (and “probably not a real phenomenon; we should be skeptical by default” is off the table as an explanation )
I read a few of those as well. I was wondering whether anything in them held up. The giant squid had been documented in the 1870s, so claims of its existence weren’t scientifically controversial.
I will say that Mysterious Creatures had high production values: Time/Life had a talented team working for them, even when they produced preposterous drek.
Acupuncture ranks right down there with the worst kind of woo. And it’s being touted in some circles for use on other animals.That’s intentionally sticking a needle into a poor critter who doesn’t know what’s going on and doesn’t have the human’s delusion that it’s real medicine.
Unfortunately there still seems to be a faction in the Pentagon that believes that telepathy and remote viewing are real, and some of these individuals have performed studies that appear to back them up. Other observers note that these studies are essentially flawed and use bad statistical analysis.
Jon Ronson’s The Men who Stare at Goats is an introduction to this particular flavour of woo, which may have emerged because of cold-war tensions and the fear of a ‘psychic spying’ gap between the US and the USSR. A small but vocal cadre of goat-watchers still has influence in US military circles, and among Congressmen.
I’ve been fascinated by it since I was a kid, but as far as I can tell it’s bunkum.
For actual therapy, maybe it has about as much effect on, say, quitting smoking as does a placebo. You can’t say it didn’t work.
Repressed memory recover is a lie, and a dangerous one.
But stage shows? I alternate between the subjects passively go along because it’s fun and fills their narcissistic need to be the center of attention, to actively going along because they want to be “in on the secret”, to being outright paid shills. The one thing I am sure of, is no one is being hypnotized in the commonly accepted sense.
Just wondering if there is concensus about this among real medical and psychological professionals? Meaning people who have had training at a serious accredited institution, not self-styled ‘therapists’, of course.
Agreed. I’ve always been highly sceptical of that.
If there is robust evidence that acupuncture is good for two medical conditions, then it is not inherently woo; only the extremely broad claims made for it are wrong. Vitamins are not woo despite many people insisting that they can cure any ailment.
Additionally, if you read the journal article linked at footnote 15, you’ll see that although only those two conditions rated high or strong, an additional eight rated moderate. See Figure 2 and the Table, with quotes from the original studies.
I’m no supporter of acupuncture as a cure-all. My wife however, who studies medical journal articles and watches virtual rounds on the web to become knowledgeable about her conditions, says it works for her shoulder pain. She does not believe in woo any more than I do.
Not all medical studies are worth the paper they’re printed on and the journal article throws out many of those reviewed for essentially this reason. The remaining good studies must be taken seriously, although they are subject to later and better analyses. I am forced to acknowledge that acupuncture may have benefits in some cases, for certain types of pain. As a cure-all it remains snake oil.
What about the relationship between acupuncture and dry needling?
Recently a physical therapist at my doctor’s office suggested dry needling to help with some muscle pain. I said that it sounded too much like acupuncture, which is just woo. He tried to convince me that it is a real medical thing, and not woo, but then we left it at me just doing more stretching.
A very brief look at some patient facing medical sites, like Clevelend Clinic and The Mayo Clinic talk about the relationship of the two practices. Acupuncture manipulates your chi energy fields, and dry needling targets nexus points in muscles. I’d be more willing to trust their explanation of dry needling if they straight up said that acupuncture is woo.
So anyway, is dry needling a medically sound descendant of acupuncture, so maybe qualifying as science out of woo? Or is it the inverse, a way of sliding woo into insurance covered medical procedures?
I consider meditation to be woo that has withstood scientific rigor.
Turns out the spiritual stuff is not necessary, but there exist techniques to calm your body and mind that provide real world long lasting health benefits that can be tracked.
Hypnotism is real. We don’t what it is really, but removing the show biz aspects and wooish explanations we can see it’s in the range of consistent definable psychological effects we study and understand better over time.
)