Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

a reply to: EnPassant

Freud died seventy-five years ago. His reputation is founded on unscientific psychological and psychiatric ideas that are now thoroughly obsolete and were mostly dreamed up by Freud himself and never tested through research. He remains influential in some circles for three reasons, all of them spurious:

1. People like to talk about themselves, something which psychoanalysis allows them to do without feeling they're boring their friends and relations;
   
   
2. Postmodernism, a form of anti-intellectualism that metastasized out of literary criticism to infect most of the liberal arts and social sciences during the late twentieth century, uses the ideas of Freud as part of its framework;
   
   
3. Freud himself was a very great writer, whose work makes fascinating reading (even more so in German, I am told) despite the fact that we now know he was dead wrong — a bit like the Bible, come to think of it.

If the best evidence you have for the existence of occult phenomena is that you think Freud believed in them, that's a pretty good idea that they are bunkum.

One of the really horrific parts in relation to Freud is in relation to a set of drawings. That in all probability are related to the group of women he treated. Freud actually had very few patients in his lifetime. But in context these patients were a group of women that were, essentially the cream of the crop when it came to European society, in his prime.

The fact of the matter is these images present very attractive women. That has had parts of their faces cut off, usually around the cheeks. I a not saying that European society was any better. Than what went on in the Western Hemisphere at the time. Or for that matter anywhere else in the world. What I am saying is that there is every reason to suggest that these drawings were of Freud's patients.

There is no reason one should not be able to find a reference to these images in a Library.

With memory intact Sigmund Freud Diagnosed these Women with Hysteria.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

The artwork you are thinking of was not done by Sigmund . . . wrong Freud. His grandson Lucian Freud is the artist and responsible for the collection of Parisian lady portraits and some of prominent women in London. However, the only portrait that has any "missing cheeks" is his portrait of a dying Sigmund who "had a great hole in his cheek, like a brown apple", in his final days suffering from cancer in his jaw.

If you can produce any of these other paintings that you attribute to Sigmund Freud . . . I'd love to see them.

BTW - I've previously googled with no results . . . so, kindly provide a link.

a reply to: solomons path

The images are really not fit for the consumption of minors.

I suggest you go to a library and review Freud's collected works it is available their.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: solomons path

The images are really not fit for the consumption of minors.

I suggest you go to a library and review Freud's collected works it is available their.

I'm not asking you to post the actual drawings, so I'm not concerned with minors . . . I'm asking for you to point out where they can be found. There is nothing that can be found at the library that I can't view online.

I have a B.Sc. in Developmental Psychology, as well as owning On Dreams, 5 lectures on Psychoanalysis, Freud's analysis of Leonardo Da Vinci, Beyond the Pleasure Principal, Inhibitions, Group Psychology, PsychoPathology of Everyday Life, Totem and Taboo, Ego and Id, and Civilization and Its Discontents. I have not seen those drawings in those works, nor am I aware of them in others.

If you know which book (not that there are many that I don't own), then kindly link to that work . . . It shouldn't be hard. I'm not saying they don't exist . . . Now, I'm just interested in reading the context of their origins.

Thanks!

a reply to: solomons path

The last time I saw these images on the internet was back in the Windows 95 days. They are drawings of very attractive women with the skin totally removed from parts of their faces. I have seen these images at least four time and attended a lecture in relation to the history of these images.

If you go to a library and review the collected works of Sigmund Freud these images are available.

I you like I could repeat that again.

a reply to: Kashai

I'm not sure why you keep suggesting the library . . . I own all but 5 of his works and I can view the those five online.

That's why I asked you for a source . . . not a personal anecdote.

Thanks!

a reply to: solomons path

What I know is that these images exist and they are reflective of a standard that related to some standard of the time.

Actually you can claim what you want if someone else wants to see these images, all they need do it go to a Library and review Freud's collected works.

That would be the point of bringing up checking a library as I know what I a talking about is available at a Library.

See in truth you clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Personally I really do not care if you have a program that tells you when to go to the bathroom. The images of these woman are available in relation to Freud's collected works in a Library.

And if you are having a problem with that position perhaps you should go to a Library.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
Actually you can claim what you want if someone else wants to see these images, all they need do it go to a Library and review Freud's collected works.

If you have a link share it. If not just say so.

As for a library, not everyone has a well stocked one near them.

a reply to: daskakik

As I have offered, the last time I saw a link with these images, on the internet, was back in 95. Honestly, I wish I did but I was fully aware of the fact I did not when I offered the information. In which case I am offering what I know certain to exist and where these rather grotesque images can be found.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: solomons path

What I know is that these images exist and they are reflective of a standard that related to some standard of the time.

Actually you can claim what you want if someone else wants to see these images, all they need do it go to a Library and review Freud's collected works.

That would be the point of bringing up checking a library as I know what I a talking about is available at a Library.

See in truth you clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Personally I really do not care if you have a program that tells you when to go to the bathroom. The images of these woman are available in relation to Freud's collected works in a Library.

And if you are having a problem with that position perhaps you should go to a Library.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure what you are going on about or why you are defensive. I don't need a library for books that I own. However, maybe you don't realize that not all editions are published with the same illustrations. So, just stating to go to the library and they'll be there means absolutely nothing unless you know which editions and by which publishers are contained at my local library.

As stated above . . . you could have easily said "I don't know" from the beginning instead of using excuses like "the images are not suitable for minors" et al.

Thanks at least for bringing them to my attention . . .

a reply to: solomons path

To describe one image it is of a woman (like Brittany Spears attractive) wearing a veil where it is apparent that all the skin has been removed, from her chin to the end of her jaw on the left side. Implied in the history is that the woman was married and the cause was due to that marriage. The area was treated very carefully so as to insure there was no infection.

Muscle, Teeth and related Tissue were clearly visible.

I was working on my BA back in the early 80's.

a reply to: vasaga

As Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Excellent post vasaga!!

But it's interesting how some of the poster's here missed your point. Which is, you're NOT questioning science and its amazing achievements but the blind acceptance of it as if it's a gospel. The used of it to further an agenda in spite of facts against it.

In a way the High Priest of Scientism along with their proponents had become the very people they abhor.

But in relation to the abuses that occurred during this time in history you can also look into the life of Frances Farmer.

For the sake of argument let me spoil the ending, Frances Farmer was Lobotomized.

There was actually a movie about it.

To be apparent she may have lived her life like Pamela Anderson has in stereotype, as an example.

At the very least she seemed to have been defined that way.

I mean today we hear about Miley Cyrus and her issues with Molley but that does not mean we should lobotomize her.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EnPassant

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are most entrenched in a distorted world view are often the ones who most zealously defend it.

You find your own behaviour curious? How very interesting life must be for you. I'm not sure whether to admire you or to pity you.

But this is nothing to the point. Can you or can you not propose a nonscientific explanation that does not fall into one of the categories I mentioned?

Or are you just going to favour us with more foolish, unsubstantiated opinions?

It is not a question of producing a non scientific explanation per se. It is a question of realising that science cannot answer many questions given the current state of scientific knowledge. Nothing is ultimately unscientific. Perhaps even consciousness can be explained in non materialistic scientific terms. But science is a long way from explaining such things. As Arthuc C. clark said, highly developed science is like magic. My point was that just because science cannot explain somethine does not mean it should be ignored. The 19th century mechanistic world view has now become naive. This is the world view that was pushed by science for a long time and it has prooved to be wrong. The current scientific world view is becoming outdated. See the Wistar Symposium

a reply to: Astyanax

in many ways 'paranormal' is just a word for what science does not understand. Calling it 'delusion' will not make it go away.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

This is coming from the guy who denies the role of genes in development, using the example of a Laura Croft 3D model to "debunk" it?

I used the Laura Croft image in relation to the amount of information it takes to define images on screen. It is a valid point. I did not deny the role of genes in development. I said - and I am correct - that there is no evidence that genes are primarily responsible for growth and form. I repeatedly asked for evidence and nobody gave it. Instead they persisted in ignoring my request and insisted they were right despite the lack of evidence. This is scientism.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EnPassant

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are most entrenched in a distorted world view are often the ones who most zealously defend it.

You find your own behaviour curious? How very interesting life must be for you. I'm not sure whether to admire you or to pity you.

But this is nothing to the point. Can you or can you not propose a nonscientific explanation that does not fall into one of the categories I mentioned?

Or are you just going to favour us with more foolish, unsubstantiated opinions?

i am not saying there are non scientific explanations for anything. I am saying there are many explanations that science is not yet aware of. There is a difference. there is an ocean of reality out there that science cannot yet grasp within its paradigms. To deny this reality and ridicule people who experience it, is scientism.

originally posted by: Kashai

I mean today we hear about Miley Cyrus and her issues with Molley but that does not mean we should lobotomize her.

Any thoughts?

Are you saying Miley Cyrus is NOT lobotmized???

a reply to: EnPassant

Except you're wrong, you were shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and in numerous ways and yet you still cling to this delusion. Again, another proponent of this idea of "scientism" falls foul of their own definition.