Nick Medford <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > In the same way I would argue that some,
> certainly not all, psychology is truly scientific (falsifiable hypotheses
> etc.). Indeed it could be (and probably has been) argued that some
> aspects of economic theory are rooted in psychology :-)
Agreed on both points. The question about psychology would be what books
have we seen yet that qualify for the list?
I think that putting Freud on the list would be like adding Ptolemy, on the
grounds that the Flat Earth Theory was one of the most historically
important contributions to the sciences of geography, navigation,
cartography and theology. Sorry, no.
Somewhere I saw the case being made that Jung did really good stuff --
outside of all the archetype stuff that he's famous for -- and that this
other stuff really qualifies as psychology. That I'm agnostic (and