Best Answer. Untestable ideas are termed 'unfalsifiable'. Study guides. Science 20 cards. Who is known as the first African American scientist. What is Luis Alvarez's cultural background.
What was Benjamin Banneker's ethnic background. Which scientist used mathematical knowledge to calculate the exact measurement of the meter. Genetics 20 cards. What are chromosomes made of. How are mitosis and meiosis similar. What is a gel electrophoresis chamber. In pea plants what are the two alleles for color. Physics 20 cards. Which term explains whether an object's velocity has increased or decreased over time. Which of these is a characteristic of nonmetals. What is the only factor needed to calculate change in velocity due to acceleration of gravity 9.
What term is used to describe splitting a large atomic nucleus into two smaller ones. Q: Ideas that cannot be tested are regarded as? Write your answer Related questions. Is philosophy considered a science? Although her disputes with Melanie Klein about analysis later split the analytic movement, Anna's tireless loyalty was central to the later flourishing of Freudian orthodoxy. Freud analysed Anna, discussing with her at great length her almost obsessive masturbatory life.
The significance of this fact should not be misread: some oppose Freud because of the heavy and disturbingly foetid scent given off by his family life, rather than coming to evaluations of his theories and methods on their merits.
Defenders point out that psychoanalysis has always laboured against a heavy weight of convention and prudery. The swingeing attacks to which Freudian theory is subjected by feminists arise from their scorn for the claim that girls suffer "penis envy" and that vaginal orgasm supersedes clitoral orgasm in the mature woman. According to Freud, girls are dismayed to discovery their genital inferiority to boys, and long to acquire a penis, first by sexually desiring their fathers and then by wishing for children, especially sons, who bring the coveted penis with them.
As to sexual maturity, Freud identified the "phallic phase" in girls as an infantile stage involving external genital pleasure, initiated by the nappy-changing mother whom girls blame for their "castration", hence mother-daughter conflict ; so any woman who does not mature by developing a capacity for internal, that is vaginal, orgasm has remained in the infantile stage.
In their robust response to these latter claims, feminist critics have powerful ammunition; empirical research undertaken by, among others, Masters and Johnson, decisively refutes Freud, showing not only that the clitoris is the chief sensory focus in the female pelvis, but that women are capable by its means of many orgasms in sequence, prompting some feminists to argue that women are restricted if they rely on men for their pleasure.
If Freudian theory thus fares ill under critical scrutiny, what explains its power? When Auden described Freud as "not a person but a whole climate of opinion", and Harold Bloom nominated him "the central imagination of our age", there is little hyperbole in the claims. Freudian theory indeed took western 20th-century civilisation by storm. How so? The answer lies in four factors.
One is Freud's genius as author and ideologue. Another is the immense attraction of any theory that offers to each individual an explanation of his or her own hidden secrets.
A third is the promise that science has at last delivered what there had never before been, namely, a proper theory of human nature. And finally there is the fact that at the centre of the package lay the most delicious, anxious, and titillating of all taboos: sex. Such a combination could hardly fail.
Of Freud's powers as a writer and advocate of ideas, and as a possessor of an extraordinary ability to weave together medical knowledge, some genuine in- sights into the human condition, and a powerful imagination, there can be no question. To read him is to be spellbound. He has the narrative skills of a first-rate novelist, and a knack for devising striking ways to describe the psychological phenomena he studied. It is a characteristic of highly speculative enquiries that the thinkers who most influence them are those who find the most compelling vocabulary - one which offers a new way of expressing and articulating its subject.
Freud himself once wrote, in commenting on a book by Jung, "In it many things are so well expressed that they seem to have taken on definitive form". This exactly describes Freud's own talent. His marvellous powers of imagination fed on analogy and metaphor, and annexed the austere terminologies of scientific medicine and psychology to them. This gave them authority. His case studies are highly organised narratives constructed from true-life gossip based on voyeurism - irresistible to human curiosity!
The second attraction - that Freud offers each individual a revelation of secrets about himself that he does not himself know - is equally irresistible. The same compound of insecurity and curiosity, anxiety and desire that makes so many resort against their better judgement to fortune-tellers, is at work here; except that here the imprimatur of science makes the proceeding respectable, which is why people will spend far more on their analysts than on their astrologers.
The third attraction is the promised theory of human nature. Religious accounts of fallen man, of humanity as midway between beast and angel, of imperishable souls trapped in disgusting matter and therefore sinful from birth, had lost their grip with many, while at the same time Darwinian views offered no account of why evolution had made man as he is.
In identifying sexual and aggressive impulses as the fundamental human drives, and in specifying their causes, Freud offered an inclusive philosophical psychology. Humans struggle with conceptual bewilderments about themselves and their complex natures; one can see why the appearance of Freud's magisterial new insights seemed as welcome as rain in drought.
My take from the responses I have received to several questions I have posted are amusing. It would appear that responders do not care to read what I have written, instead they grab one quote, completely out of context, and then pretend to respond. Perhaps I was hoping for something philosophical in reply.
I thought JustinTruth started out alright, but then got completely lost logically. For example, last I checked, man was natural. So, man studying Nature is actually Nature studying Nature. An objective study has to come from a place which lies outside of the subject being studied. Maybe Justine thinks he can do such pointing, but it is logically impossible.
But who knows, perhaps Justine is a God. Is this a fact, or an agreement? At an early age we learn which color is which. The visual cortex does not produce colors, it is dark in there. Who knows, if we were to somehow tap into somebodies brain, the sky would look green to us. Facts are also very personal. Yes, my Being is personal. Nobody else could possibly know what Being is looking through my eyes. All they have is my outward appearance.
I am butan object to others. How would they know if it were not another being looking through these eyes of mine. No theory can ever, ever be proven. That is how science works. My question was intended to explore the distinction between metaphysics and what often passes as science these days.
Science used to be a branch of philosophy that is why we still have Ph. Now it has become something different. The term Scientism is thrown about. This is the belief by a laymanin something just because Scientists say so. Much of the stuff taught in science classes these days is pure Scientism propaganda, no different from what is taught in seminaries.
There is no separation between church and state, religions are taught in science classes. I mean a Judeo Christian Big Bang? Perhaps we need to review what the term metaphysics means, to start with? If Evolution is not metaphysics, then nothing is. As it is, I happen to like the metaphysics unless it is abused to promote a dominant race. In my opinion, I am just trying to get an honest answer to the entirety of my question. Not some semantic nitpicking. I am always ready to change my opinion by way of a convincing argument.
I change opinions every day. Re: What is the difference between an untestable scientific theory and metaphysics Post by Felix » Mon May 07, am LuckyR said: "It never ceases to surprise me that on technical topics, where folks without experience feel perfectly comfortable disputing out of hand, the knowledge and experience of professionals in the field.
Erribert: "There are ideas that are called theories that were never arrived at through the scientific method. Erribert: "Another great example of metaphysics disguised as science is much current cosmology. Erribert: "For example, last I checked, man was natural.
One should not expect to receive "honest answers" to pretentious propositions. Science aims to explain and understand Science relies on evidence. What is science? Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For example, consider the idea that a sparrow's song is genetically encoded and is unaffected by the environment in which it is raised, in comparison to the idea that a sparrow learns the song it hears as a baby.
Logical reasoning about this example leads to a specific set of expectations.
0コメント