On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Michael Catolico wrote:
> i'm a little surprised that much of this discussion about freud has
> turned around whether or not his work is "scientific" - as though this
> is a neutral or non-ideological category in itself. freud's is not a
> positivist empirical discipline in the sense that he made observations
> that could be readily repeated in a lab-like setting. isn't this one of
> the same arguments leveled at the "unscientific" aspects of marxism by
> bourgeois economists?
I agree with the sentiment here: let's get clear about what science is before we dump on Freud for not being "scientific". First clarification: scientific investigation does not require repeated observations in a "lab-like" setting. Fields like astronomy, primatology, and ecology are "non-lab" sciences. Why do people get this misconception that scientists have to work in labs? Too much CSI?
Here's my take on what makes a field a science:
1. Systematic empiricism: development of valid and reliable measurement tools
2. Creation of falsifiable hypotheses and willingness to reject hypotheses inconsistent with data
3. Public verification of results (via peer review, replication, published rebuttals/critiques)
Given these criteria, yeah, physics is a science; astrology, no; economics, no (they seem to completely ignore #2); most subfields of psychology, yes; Freudian psychology, no (again, problems w/ #2).
Miles