/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5136289]

what did this man contribute to science?

[Anonymous No.5136294]

>>5136289
He began some very important work, in the same way that democritus began a long line of important theories of physics. For actual scientific content you'll have to wait a few hundred years, but he gave a thesis for antithesis to work against.

also he gave pseudointellectuals (read english lit professors) an arsenal of words to make themselves sound knowledgeable on the human condition

[pretty girls No.5136295]

A lot in field that everyone disregards.

[Anonymous No.5136301]

>>5136289
Didn't he found some new bone in the brain?

[Anonymous No.5136307]

He got the idea that the unconscious exists and is important into the psychological mainstream. He also greatly enhanced the prestige of psychology, attracting researchers who would eventually start actually using evidence.

[Anonymous No.5136309]

>>5136307

you mean subconscious?

[Anonymous No.5136313]

>>5136309
Probably. Been a real long time since I've had a psych class.

[Crane No.5136319]

>>5136307

In his days, he may have enhanced it, but nowadays Freud is the piss stain keeping actual experimental psychology from attending the fancy science dinner.

[Anonymous No.5136321]

I sort of have to read a book about psychology and fucking damn it... he said a lot of inane crap, but the craziest thing is that it seems like he was right about them.

[Crane No.5136330]

>>5136321

The craziest thing is, he was not. Catharsis hypothesis for example has been disproven more than once.
And so on.

[Anonymous No.5136340]

>>5136289

He got an erection looking at his mother and based his entire theory around the fact this was a normal experience.

It has since been explained by the fact he had a wet nurse so never bonded/imprinted on his mother as a normal child would.

So his entire life's work was pretty much wrong

[Anonymous No.5136346]

>>5136307
>attracting researchers who would eventually start actually using evidence.
No, I think neuroscience would have started up around the same time without Freud ever having lived.

I'm assuming you're not referring to psychology, in which the researchers only pretend to use evidence.

[Crane No.5136351]

>>5136346

I agree with your first sentence, however 0/10 bad troll for the second one.

[Anonymous No.5136357]

>>5136289
Well he started a whole branch of science. However, his theories were not scientific by structure. Popper used Freudian psychology as an example of a non-falsifiable theory.

[Crane No.5136372]

>>5136357

Psychology began way before Freud.
Wundt started the first laboratory for psychophysics in Leipzig.

[Anonymous No.5136373]

>>5136330
How has catharsis been disproved?

[Anonymous No.5136391]

The championed the idea that the mind has parts, most of which are not conscious, and that conflicts or problems with these parts can produce behavioral disorders.

Most everything else is bunk.

[Anonymous No.5136395]

Even if his ideas ended up being bunk they did open up new realms of thinking that led to real discoveries. Sometimes it is enough to just make people think differently.

[Anonymous No.5136401]

>>5136340
Freud is like Marx, in that he raised questions no one had really thought about before, and therefore had a positive influence on the social sciences even though all of his answers were wrong.
>>5136346
There's plenty of evidence-based psychology. CBT is one of its triumphs.

Now, anything related to priming? lolno.

[Crane No.5136421]

>>5136373

There are relevant experiments on this, but I won't go so far as researching my papers now.
Maybe it already convinces you that "learning through reinforcement" shows us that successful use of violence does in fact INCREASE future violence instead of reducing it. Catharsis hypothesis says that using violence is a way of "venting steam" (or reducing thanatos drive if you want to use freudian terms) should make someone less violent.

[Anonymous No.5136424]

>>5136401
>he raised questions no one had really thought about before, and therefore had a positive influence on the social sciences even though all of his answers were wrong.
Basically this.

[Crane No.5136429]

>>5136421

Catharsis hypothesis says that using violence is a way of "venting steam" (or reducing thanatos drive if you want to use freudian terms) (AND THEREFORE) should make someone less violent.

>*edit: capslocked brackets were missing

[Anonymous No.5136444]

>>5136421
>>5136429
But catharsis doesn't say anything about long term effects. In ths short run acting out aggression will result in relaxation.

[Anonymous No.5136451]

>>5136444
I don't think this is true either.

[Anonymous No.5136468]

Freud introduced the idea of psychic determinism as opposed to physiological determinism, an idea that was dominant among "psychologist" (at the time, neurologist) of his days.

This contribution is lost on most people.

At the time, Freud was interested in hysteric patient which displayed symptoms similar to those of paralysis. A neurologist of his day would have said "this person surely suffers from some sort of physiological disorder which we could observe in an autopsy, otherwise it's just faking". To which Freud replied: "isn't it possible that there is physiologically nothing wrong with this person and that yet he is paralyzed?".

[Anonymous No.5136479]

>>5136421
This is incorrect.

Freudian theory is based on the idea of the pleasure principle. Based on this idea, the release of pent up aggression will result in pleasure which will then create an habit of releasing that energy through violence in a non sublimated manner.

Freud would say that such a person would need to build structure which allowed him to release that energy through more acceptable channels. Like jogging.

[Anonymous No.5136490]

>>5136451
Catharsis means an emotional release. Of course this is short-sighted.