<p>In this essay I evaluate the legality of Karl Popper’s criticism against psychoanalysis, regarding this theory of Freud’s being pseudoscientific. Popper’s criticism is based on his theory of demarcation in which he states that an empirical theory must be possible to test by observations in order to be, as most important is, hypothetically possible to falsify based on other empirical statements – often in the form of new found facts that contradict the original statement/theory. In purpose of assessing Popper’s criticism I perform a modified idea analysis, based on a book by Evert Vedung (1977). By referring both to Popper and to spokespersons of psychoanalysis I structure the arguments pro and contra Popper’s criticism, in order to then weigh these arguments against each other. My main conclusion is that psychoanalysis, regardless of Popper’s criticism, is in fact an empirical theory since it can be internally validated based on the observations made by a psychoanalyst. But according to the theory of demarcation psychoanalysis can not be tested based on observations, probably because Popper by ”observations” meant only those that can be made and validated by independent scientists.</p>

In this essay I evaluate the legality of Karl Popper’s criticism against psychoanalysis, regarding this theory of Freud’s being pseudoscientific. Popper’s criticism is based on his theory of demarcation in which he states that an empirical theory must be possible to test by observations in order to be, as most important is, hypothetically possible to falsify based on other empirical statements – often in the form of new found facts that contradict the original statement/theory. In purpose of assessing Popper’s criticism I perform a modified idea analysis, based on a book by Evert Vedung (1977). By referring both to Popper and to spokespersons of psychoanalysis I structure the arguments pro and contra Popper’s criticism, in order to then weigh these arguments against each other. My main conclusion is that psychoanalysis, regardless of Popper’s criticism, is in fact an empirical theory since it can be internally validated based on the observations made by a psychoanalyst. But according to the theory of demarcation psychoanalysis can not be tested based on observations, probably because Popper by ”observations” meant only those that can be made and validated by independent scientists.

The problem of demarcation continues to attract attention, in part because solutions are perceived to have enormous social significance. The civic motivation, however, I argue is in tension with the heterogeneity of the sciences. Philosophers of science would be better employed reflecting on the features, causes, and consequences, of created, scientific controversies. These arise when relevant experts are in broad agreement about what conclusions can sensibly be drawn from available evidence, but the public perceives an expert community deeply divided and conclusions that are plagued by profound and systemic uncertainty. In the second part of the paper I explore this concept further.