:1orglaugh :1orglaugh


Oh, and... 50 BIATCH!

Ok, please explain to me then how a method which can't be refuted by any test results (even opposite ones) is not flawed.

Any explanation would be lost on someone pretentiously ignorant enough to make that sort of generalization about the entirety of Jung's work.

Owing to the fact Freud became obsessed with turning childhood sexuality into a universal explanatory mechanism, your charges have a marginally better chance of sticking there.

As you have apparently failed to note, I am not talking about the entirety of Jung's work, or even Freud's for that matter.

If there is one thing I can't stand.. one thing that makes me want to crush someone under foot like an annoying insect.. its someone who tries to get away with backpeddling.

Their methods ARE flawed from a scientific point of view. Simple as pie.

However, I'll quote myself here:

Now, "major innovations" implies that I don't reject their theories in their entirety, does it not?

:1orglaugh

If you say so...

As with many of your other posts in this thread, that statement was nothing more than another vague, murky generalization designed to make you appear like you know what the fuck you are babbling on about.

And, a little more about why my criticism of Jung has some very firm grounds:

The collective unconscious he uses can't be tested. It's a theory, but there is no way to prove it wrong, or, because of that, to corroborate it as Popper would say. Thus, it's not a matter of science, but a matter of belief.
Now, another HUGE problem is his teleological point of view. While that was perfectly acceptable in the days of Aristotle, any teleological theory has some serious issues in modern day science. And, not only that, no, he also comes up with some totally speculative never-to-be-tested synchronicity connection.
While doing so, he starts at the top of his theory, postulating things which, yet again, CAN NOT BE TESTED IN ANY WAY, and derives the elements of his theory from that.
Now, to me, those are flaws, yes.

Ofcourse, his archetypes are of value, as are his innovative views on development. However, his method as a whole most certainly seems flawed.

How to be intellectual without being intellectual 101:

First, we learn to make fuzzy generalizations which sound applicable to the subject, but actually contain no rational content.

--------------------

Sample encounter 1:

Intellectual: "For Maurras and his followers, however, Nietzsche was a ?great barbarian? whose work, despite its errors, was a useful antidote to the poison of ?revolution? (socialism)."

You: "Hey, Nietzche brought us some major innovations, I'll be the first to admit that, but his methods were and are flawed from a scientific point of view."

Intellectual: "Hmmmm..."

-------------------------

Sample encounter 2:

Intellectual: "It is remarkable that the theory of relativity gave us the means to define absolute value of energy and the quantum theory enables us to define absolute value of entropy!"

You: "Hey, Einstein brought us some major innovations, I'll be the first to admit that, but his methods were and are flawed from a scientific point of view."

Intellectual: "Um, his methods were flawed? You reject relativity"

You: "Ah ha! Notice I said 'Major innovations', does that imply I reject ALL of Einsteins work?! Huh? Huh?"

Intellectual: "Hmmm.."

-------------------------

Yes, you too can hold impressive conversations on subjects you never knew you knew anything about.

I just posted my criticism on Jung. Be my guest to respond.

Nietzsche cultural philosophy was of great value, the rest was of a very doubtful nature. For instance, he took rewriting the history of morals way too far, including things such as wordplay to make his point. (the "goths" were mighty, that was "godly", from there the word "good" originated - all the words look alike a bit, so my theory must be correct)

And, Einstein? He postulated the EPR-paradox as proof against some of the fundamentals of quantum theory, unfortunately for him, the experiment of Aspect got in the way. He laid the foundations for quantum physics, but was afraid to accept the full implications.

:helpme

Why does Labret keep sticking things in his ass?

I've yet to develop a theory on why this is so, but being suddenly confronted with an image of a man ramming a large foreign object into his anus has a sobering, centering effect upon the human psyche.

If Labret wasn't willing to, uh, take one for the team so to speak.. Punkworlds posts would drive us all insane.

That's because you just shit yourself.