Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael Dawson -PSU" <mdawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> > > What does Freud have to do with "scientific knowlege"?
> > >
> > > Carl
> >
> >1. As Jared Diamond notes, he shattered the idea that conscious thought was
> >all there is to the human psyche.
>
> Izzat so? Here's a bit more of that Todd Dufresne LA Times article I cited
> initially:
As Miles put it, "I can't believe I'm defending Freud." But the paragraphs Carl quotes are utter nonsense. (And I agree with Miles also that proving, or failing to prove, that Freud was a fraud doesn't advance us one step towards showing the falsity of psychoanalysis. Such ad hominems should be left to the red-baiters on the list.)
Try this. You probably haven't thought much about any of your old elementary or high-school teachers lately. Think for a minute, and you will remember some of them, perhaps even vividly.
It wasn't in you consciousness a minute ago.
It is now.
Where in the hell has it been hiding all this time?
That is one of the fundamental questions concerning the nature of the mind/brain/human personality/whatever. Freud's theory of the unconscious attempted to answer it. I'm wholly persuaded by Freud's critics that both he and the whole psychoanalytic tradition were and are profoundly wrong in their answer(s). But that is no basis for the utter bullshit that Miles proceeds to quote.
Carrol