Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift. Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking. (Arguably it is

Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift. Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking. (Arguably it is also ignoring most of the early 20th century, e.g., the whole body of constructivist theory formed in the 1920s.) Freud was essentially an answer to shortcomings in clinical psychology in the late 19th century, and, while there have been huge advances in clinical psychology, there will be always differences. However, Freud's hints at a general theory, his 'metapsychology' may be still of broader interest today. This is neither a contest nor a zero-sum game. – What I was addressing, are those who promote the notion of Freud being falsified just to be entitled to ignore him, to not read any, who rather prefer to convey a distorted idea, which is based one hearsay only, but still feel qualified to assess the value of his thinking. (The same is probably true for some notions of Kant. Also, arguably Freud and Jung represent rather opposing, incompatible concepts than the same.) [Edit:] *) the whole body of constructivist theory This is meant to refer to authors like Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer and what is still found in remanences under the title of sociology of knowledge (Alfred Schütz, etc).