I ignore them. " How do you classify behaviourism vs. Freudianism, or the dispute between them?"
Freud's claims are junk. Behaviorism is mostly junk. The only idea worth anything in behaviorism is the fact that motivation exists. Behaviorists don't have a handle on what motivation is, the importance of rational thought and the fact that people are not statistical objects.
spunkets: I ignore them.
Thanks, but I didn't mean you PERSONALLY :-)
The original topic came up that one theory does not "replace " another theory wholesale, but that the correspondence principle applies. Granted.
I then raised the point that sometimes one "theory" does get replace wholesale by another, citing the examples of phlogiston / quantum chemistry and covalent bonds, or pre-Copernican / Copernican cosmology. I also as a side point raised the issue that at the time the original systems were in vogue, the practice of empiricism was not universal, nor were the terms codifed.
You replied that nonetheless, phlogiston was not a theory. Fine, great.
The question remains, for the purposes of discussion within this thread, how is one to classify the situation where a wholesale set of ideas IS discarded because its foundations are found to be erroneous, and the correspondence principle does not apply?
As a hint to the kinds of things I was thinking of when I wrote this, I asked about psychology, Freudianism, and behaviourism, noting that those latter two are in strident opposition.
g_w:How do you classify behaviourism vs. Freudianism, or the dispute between them?"
spunkets:Freud's claims are junk. Behaviorism is mostly junk. The only idea worth anything in behaviorism is the fact that motivation exists. Behaviorists don't have a handle on what motivation is, the importance of rational thought and the fact that people are not statistical objects.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, by the way. :-)
But my point again, was, for the purposes of classification as put forth by Patrick Henry and Coyoteman, what are we to do with said systems?
Cheers!