You cannot falsify a claim like "children experience a stage where they feel a certain way toward their mother and another way toward their father". To falsify it you would essentially have to read a child's mind. If it's so resistant to falsification then it's already on shaky ground as a scientific hypothesis, but we can at least try to see if we can find empirical support for it. If it's supported by observation and the results can be reproduced then the hypothesis gains credence. Basic science
Certain children will be more attached to one parent or another, sure, so in some cases you CAN observe attachment to the mother and hostility to the father. But is this innate? Is it a distinct stage which can be observed
If you can find modern psychological articles that express support for the Oedipus Complex as a childhood developmental stage over competing models I will grant you your point
IMO Freud's widespread influence is something of a tragedy. Although some of his theories do contain germs of truth, they do not qualify as legitimate science. They're closer to second-rate philosophy. Not that philosophy is inferior to science, but it must be filtered through empirical observation before it's used as a medical treatment. Freudian psychoanalysis skips that step
Compare that to philosophers such as David Hume, who argued that the understanding of the world stems from experience, laying the foundation for behaviorism and conditioning, which laid the groundwork for psychiatric theories of illness such as the Trauma model which, unlike Freud's ideas, are not mere relics
That is how philosophy ought to properly influence medicine. Influence alone is not proof of accuracy. Psychiatry has struggled for decades to eliminate pseudoscientific elements from its practices, and Freud's methods played a big role in normalizing these elements
reply
share