21 JUN 2012 by ideonexus

 Marxism and Freudianism are Not Science

The difficulties connected with my criterion of demarcation (D) are important, but must not be exaggerated. It is vague, since it is a methodological rule, and since the demarcation between science and nonscience is vague. But it is more than sharp enough to make a distinction between many physical theories on the one hand, and metaphysical theories, such as ' psychoanalysis, or Marxism (in its present form), on the other. This is, of course, one of my main theses; and nobody who has not unde...
  1  notes

Marxism did not allow itself to be tested, Freudianism was so flexible as to have an explanation for everything.

28 AUG 2011 by ideonexus

 The Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience

What I had in mind was that his previous observations may not have been much sounder than this new one; that each in its turn had been interpreted in the light of "previous experience," and at the same time counted as additional confirmation. What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of a theory. But this meant very little, I reflected, since every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light Adler's theory, or equally of Freud's. I...
  1  notes

Science makes risky predictions, predicting things that the theory must be strong in order to prove. Popper compares early psychology and its explanations of human behavior that work in all cases with Einstein's theory of relativity and it's risky predictions.