<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>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:hik-488 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Bergquist, Linda |
| Publisher | University of Kalmar, School of Human Sciences, Humanvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds