You're viewing a single thread.
Thereβs a reason him and Jungβs findings are ignored in favor of actual scientific discoveries.
Jung's findings have been debunked?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
To be more specific, Jung's psychology has been characterized as "unscientific" on the following grounds:
- that some Jungian concepts, such as archetypes and synchronicity, cannot be proven by the scientific method
- that Jung subscribed to a nineteenth-century notion of evolution that has since been discredited
- that Jung's valuation of the mental functions of feeling and intuition on the same level as thinking weakens the attitude of rational objectivity that is essential in scientific research
- that Jung's interest in occult traditions, including the pre-scientific European past (third-century Gnosticism and medieval alchemy) and contemporary Asian cultures (Taoism and Tibetan Buddhism) amounts to a glorification of mysticism and irrationality
- that Jung's clinical specialization in the treatment of schizophrenia and his own brush with psychosis made him an untrustworthy guide to "ordinary" reality
https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/the-unscientific-nature-of-jungs-psychology.html
Thanks for the explanation.
This is only 10% of the article dipshit. Some of these points are only theorized to be the case.
Also, I find it kind of funny. Scientific method is just a model with its own flaws and is bound to faliure in certain fields as all models do.
You arenβt much of a thinker, are ya?
π€·ββοΈ
how do you feel about who has the burden of proof? the person claiming the thing or someone saying there is no evidence to suggest that the claim is correct?
How do you debunk a bunch of woo?
exactly.