5 ms·
I think those Cognitive Functions are just Jungian pseudoscience. They are based on work that is closer to fiction than science. Not any better or worse than an
by fsloth 6y ago
I think those Cognitive Functions are just Jungian pseudoscience. They are based on work that is closer to fiction than science. Not any better or worse than any psychologically motivated work of fiction - but fiction never the less.
- nicoburns 6y agoI like to see it as an as-yet poorly evidenced scientific hypothesis rather than an pseudo-scientific "fact". Which indeed may need to go through further revisions before the correct version is found. But I see lots of circumstantial evidence which makes me think it is worthy of further investigation.
- fsloth 6y agoLots of good fiction feels profound. Good fiction feels right and true. But feeling right does not turn the fiction into science.
- nicoburns 6y agoSure, but neither does a lack of evidence mean that something isn't true. It's not science currently. But that doesn't mean it won't be (nor does it mean it will be). I think you'd be surprised at how many scientific breakthroughs have come from individuals being bloody minded about things that everyone else thought were ridiculous. Science isn't just about testing hypothesis. The other part of it is about generating hypothesis to test. That part tends to be a lot more fluffy and subjective, but it's just as critical to the scientific process.
- fsloth 6y agoThe main issue I have with Jungian analysis is that it takes Jungs ideas as given and then implements no work to test or validate them. Any authoritarian system that does not evolve is more like religious or political dogma than science. The difference between Jung and for example Alfred Wegener who was one of the early proponents of plate tectonics is that Wegener's ideas were validated. "Lots of strange ideas have been true" is not incorrect, but I think there are a lot more strange incorrect ideas out there than correct ones.