I just saw a comment that abhorred the ideas of Sigmund Freud, particularly the psychosexual stages. He stated that it was the stupidest idea in parallel with Marx's. He even mentioned it was ONLY A THEORY.
My response to him:
If you only read textbooks, then you’re lacking some knowledge about his works.
Theory of gravity is still a theory today. Haha. But it doesn’t matter as long as it is validated, replicated by other studies, and its utility in the field. The theory of gravity is still open for change and if there are a parsimonious theory that could replace it in explaining some phenomena in the physical world, then they will choose it. THAT’S THE BEAUTY OF THEORY, THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE.
The development of theories was indebted with the works of Freud. Without the courage of publishing controversial theory and concepts, the rise of intellectual spirits will never occur. It’s like telling the world that Democritus is bullshit because he only stated atoms are everywhere and it is physically indivisible. Do you think scientists will ever achieve this advanced knowledge without ideas from philosophers, like Democritus? Why do you think authors included them in textbooks? Isn’t a form of arrogance to state such shit without even trying to understand the theory itself?
We studied history to see the development of thoughts in our field, to pay our respects to the pioneers, and to look back on the zeitgeist of their time.
When we study behavior, do you even realize that we take a glimpse into the past of the person? Because it helps us understand his/her behavior. But, of course, it's not the whole picture. It only gives us another way of construing events and behavior at present.
My response to him:
If you only read textbooks, then you’re lacking some knowledge about his works.
Theory of gravity is still a theory today. Haha. But it doesn’t matter as long as it is validated, replicated by other studies, and its utility in the field. The theory of gravity is still open for change and if there are a parsimonious theory that could replace it in explaining some phenomena in the physical world, then they will choose it. THAT’S THE BEAUTY OF THEORY, THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE.
The development of theories was indebted with the works of Freud. Without the courage of publishing controversial theory and concepts, the rise of intellectual spirits will never occur. It’s like telling the world that Democritus is bullshit because he only stated atoms are everywhere and it is physically indivisible. Do you think scientists will ever achieve this advanced knowledge without ideas from philosophers, like Democritus? Why do you think authors included them in textbooks? Isn’t a form of arrogance to state such shit without even trying to understand the theory itself?
We studied history to see the development of thoughts in our field, to pay our respects to the pioneers, and to look back on the zeitgeist of their time.
When we study behavior, do you even realize that we take a glimpse into the past of the person? Because it helps us understand his/her behavior. But, of course, it's not the whole picture. It only gives us another way of construing events and behavior at present.
No comments:
Post a Comment