<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br />
Freudian Psychology is considered by many to be pseudoscience, but as pointed out in another answer, there have recently been increasing numbers of comparisons between psychoanalysis and other depth psychology schools (e.g. <a href="https://www.springermedizin.de/lac-depressionsstudie/10990824" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a long-term study of CBT vs psychoanalysis for depression, where CBT is not much effective</a>) with results which show that</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">psychoanalysis</a> is just as effective as CBT for many disorders,</li>
<li>it is more effective for certain disorders, and</li>
<li>it is less effective for others.</li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, psychoanalysis and CBT are both appropriate for certain patients and disorders and that the decision between them has to be made case by case.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong><br />
Freudian psychology is still applied, and Freudian psychoanalysis is still actively used today and according to the Science Council, <strong><a href="http://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Science</a></strong> is...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on <strong>evidence</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>It is in the scientific evidence where the support of the Freudian approach is limited</strong>. However, Freud's ideas have never been extensively assessed scientifically. For instance, there is no unambiguous evidence that psychoanalysis works <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0aa5/18b6dda4917ff48163ed86c7aff28753b6d5.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Horgan, 1996)</a> and supporters of Freud’s theories are believed to be influenced mainly on the confirming evidence, while they largely ignore the disconfirming cases <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Shermer, 2011)</a>. Indeed, Sulloway <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258332565_Psychoanalysis_and_Pseudoscience_Frank_J_Sulloway_Revisits_Freud_and_His_Legacy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Dufresne, 2007)</a> argues that...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The greatest failing of psychoanalysis is its blatant rejection of the
scientific method. Without such methods for critical thinking, a
discipline inevitably drifts from one pseudoscientific system of
belief to another.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It should be stressed, however, that the human psyche is extremely complex and largely not understood. Other theories that are generally regarded as valid science, such as the string theory in astrophysics have never been proven either, and the relativity theory of Einstein took about <a href="http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2016/02/einsteins-theory-of-relativity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">hundred years to be proven right</a>.</p>
<p>Indeed, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Shermer, 2011)</a>. <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/17702">As covered in this answer</a> to <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/15345/does-suppressing-a-desire-make-it-more-powerful">Does suppressing a desire make it more powerful?</a>, Freud's work is derived from empirical evidence and backed up with high profile journal articles. Nonetheless, in the gray area between science and pseudoscience, according to eminent critics such as <a href="https://search.proquest.com/docview/1293531417?pq-origsite=gscholar" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Karl Popper</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9026176/Professor-Frank-Cioffi.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Frank Cioffi</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_Psychoanalysis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adolf Grünbaum</a>, the theories of Freud are generally placed in the area of pseudoscience as they are seen as <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability" rel="nofollow noreferrer">non-falisifiable</a>.</p>
<p>Many authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):</p>
<ul>
<li>it is not scientific, and</li>
<li>its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.&quot; (Hansson, 2008)</li>
</ul>
<p>With regard to Hansson's first point, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a PsychologyToday article (2016)</a> points out that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>psychology was defined by the application of scientific method(s) and psychologists conduct valuable research and have developed some key insights into animal behavior, cognition, consciousness, and the human condition.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hansson, has since updated his definition of pseudoscience to an &quot;improved version&quot; (<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pc4OAAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=Hansson%2C%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&amp;lr&amp;pg=PA61#v=onepage&amp;q=Hansson,%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hansson, 2013</a>)</p>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258332565_Psychoanalysis_and_Pseudoscience_Frank_J_Sulloway_Revisits_Freud_and_His_Legacy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dufresne, T. (2007) Psychoanalysis and Pseudoscience: Frank J. Sulloway Revisits Freud and His Legacy, Dufrense, T (Ed.) <em>Against Freud: Critics Talk Back</em> Stanford: Stanford University Press</a><br></li>
<li>Hansson, S. O. (1996). <em>Defining Pseudoscience</em>. Philosophia Naturalis, 33(1): pp. 169—176<br><strong>Still to find DOI/PMID reference</strong></li>
<li><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hansson, S. O. (2008) <em>Science and Pseudo-Science</em>. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition) [Online]</a><br></li>
<li><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pc4OAAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=Hansson%2C%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&amp;lr&amp;pg=PA61#v=onepage&amp;q=Hansson,%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In: Pigliucci, M. &amp; Boudry, M. (Eds.) <em>The philosophy of pseudoscience</em>, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 61-77.</a><br></li>
<li><a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0aa5/18b6dda4917ff48163ed86c7aff28753b6d5.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Horgan, J. (1996). Why Freud isn’t dead. Scientific American, 275(6), 106-111</a>. or <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24993497" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a><br></li>
<li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PsychologyToday (2016) The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate [Online]</a><br></li>
<li><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience?. Scientific American, 305(3), 92-92</a>. or <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26002803" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a><br></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Supporting network posts</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/8364/is-there-anything-in-freudian-psychoanalytic-theory-that-is-scientifically-sound">Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/12451/why-did-karl-popper-criticize-freuds-theories">Why did Karl Popper criticize Freud&#39;s theories?</a></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Note</strong><br />
The community is invited to improve this answer. This question-and-answer is discussed <a href="https://cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/community-answer-for-questions-on-freudian-psychology">here in meta</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T08:24:07.747Z
Kihlstrom's deconstruction of Freud's legacy probably deserves a mention  http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T13:57:11.753Z
Grunbaum's book had received extensive commentary in its day, in particular in BBS, [Volume 9 - Issue 2 - June 1986](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/issue/E9C8D7C532E4D1F26AE581D9E310F238).
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-11T04:49:42.153Z
I think the bit of "the relativity theory of Einstein took about hundred years to be proven right" is not correct. It gives many predictions, most of them had been confirmed in a couple decades after its publication. The gravitational wave is one of them, but because of limited technology that it couldn't be confirmed sooner. But in general it had been accepted to mainstream physics longs ago.
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-11T04:51:47.787Z
I waver at correcting that bit in the answer, because it would affect the conclusion: I think, although we can say that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience because of lacking falsifiable evidence, we cannot say that it doesn't have merit. At least it can give us a different perspective to describe a problem. Is that correct?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T05:15:50.480Z
Please see [this meta post](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2373/7604)
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-12T04:57:20.417Z
Good answer +1.  A couple of notes worth addressing however: Testability (which also requires falsifiability) is the main criteria of a scientific theory that Freud fails to meet.  While some aspects of Freud's ideas have been tested; other aspects are not actually testable.
And "Proof" is not applicable in science (it's a term used in math and logic which are primarily deductive, while science is largely inductive).  You probably meant that string theory has never been tested, and that Einstein's theories continue to be put to the test.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-12T06:24:54.010Z
@ArnonWeinberg thanks! Please [see here in meta](https://cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/community-answer-for-questions-on-freudian-psychology). I am turning this answer into a community answer. I would like to invite people to edit the answer such that it represents the community opinion. The topic interests me a lot, but admittedly it is outside of my comfort zone. Please edit the answer (and the question) if you think it needs editing.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-18T17:28:16.423Z
"the relativity theory of Einstein took about hundred years to be proven right." I'm astonished by the source used for this affirmation. The Theory of Relativity started to gather strong evidences in 1919 barely 15 years after initial publication. Evidences has been piling up since then. So many things wrong with that article I can't even start it... "proof" of a science theory, saying gravitational waves evidences was "prove" for entire theory instead of the particular prediction, etc.
Andre Figueiredo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-18T17:48:29.157Z
That whole paragraph could be rewritten. What is "valid science"?, theoretical is diff from empirical, Theory of strings is pure theoretical, haven't gathered any empirical evidence yet. There are some better examples like the Newtonian gravity theory (supersed by Einstein's) and the Germ theory of disease (which was discredit for centuries).
Andre Figueiredo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-09-11T10:19:23.007Z
2020-12-19T14:22:24.087Z
2020-12-19T14:22:24.087Z
AliceD
<p><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/freudian-psychology" rel="noreferrer">Freudian Psychology</a> is based on the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" rel="noreferrer">Sigmund Freud</a> (1856-1939). He is the founder of Psychoanalysis and is credited with establishing the field of verbal psychotherapy. Freud is known for his theories of the unconscious mind, dreams, infantile sexuality, libido, repression, and transference, ego, and the superego. </p>

<p>However, despite his acclaimed influence on psychology and psychotherapy, it seems that Freudian Psychology is criticized by many <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-freud-still-isnt-dead/" rel="noreferrer">(Horgan, 2017)</a> and is even considered to be <a href="http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html" rel="noreferrer">pseudoscience</a>. </p>

<p>Is Freudian Psychology considered to be a scientifically valid approach? </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/c88DU.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/c88DU.jpg" alt="Freud"></a><br>
<sup>Sigmund Freud. source: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a></sup>  </p>

<p><br></p>

<p><sup>Related:<br>
• <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/10478/12937">What are the different branches of Psychoanalysis?</a><br>
• <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/8364/12937">Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?</a><br>
• <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9929/12937">Which schools of psychotherapy are most credible to a hard scientist?</a></sup></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T10:48:36.960Z
Related: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40146/was-there-a-picture-of-freud-above-a-urinal-at-washington-university
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-17T11:20:48.213Z
I would say, **not scientifically valid, but valid none the less**.  [See my answer to related question](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248/7604)
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-12T09:21:17.507Z
Just wanted to share the following (lengthy article) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/why-freud-survives on Freud
Robin Kramer-ten Have
<psychoanalysis><freud><pseudoscience>
Is Freudian Psychology a scientifically valid contribution to the Cognitive Sciences?
AliceD
# Is Freudian Psychology a scientifically valid contribution to the Cognitive Sciences?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-09-11)

[Freudian Psychology](https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/freudian-psychology) is based on the work of [Sigmund Freud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) (1856-1939). He is the founder of Psychoanalysis and is credited with establishing the field of verbal psychotherapy. Freud is known for his theories of the unconscious mind, dreams, infantile sexuality, libido, repression, and transference, ego, and the superego.

However, despite his acclaimed influence on psychology and psychotherapy, it seems that Freudian Psychology is criticized by many [(Horgan, 2017)](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-freud-still-isnt-dead/) and is even considered to be [pseudoscience](http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html).

Is Freudian Psychology considered to be a scientifically valid approach?

[![Freud](https://i.sstatic.net/c88DU.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/c88DU.jpg)  
Sigmund Freud. source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)

Related:  
• [What are the different branches of Psychoanalysis?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/10478/12937)  
• [Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/8364/12937)  
• [Which schools of psychotherapy are most credible to a hard scientist?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9929/12937)

**Tags:** psychoanalysis, freud, pseudoscience

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Just wanted to share the following (lengthy article) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/why-freud-survives on Freud  
> **username_1**: Related: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40146/was-there-a-picture-of-freud-above-a-urinal-at-washington-university  
> **username_2**: I would say, **not scientifically valid, but valid none the less**.  [See my answer to related question](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248/7604)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2017-09-11. Score: 15 | Accepted answer

**Short answer**  
Freudian Psychology is considered by many to be pseudoscience, but as pointed out in another answer, there have recently been increasing numbers of comparisons between psychoanalysis and other depth psychology schools (e.g. [a long-term study of CBT vs psychoanalysis for depression, where CBT is not much effective](https://www.springermedizin.de/lac-depressionsstudie/10990824)) with results which show that

* [psychoanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) is just as effective as CBT for many disorders,
* it is more effective for certain disorders, and
* it is less effective for others.

In other words, psychoanalysis and CBT are both appropriate for certain patients and disorders and that the decision between them has to be made case by case.

**Background**  
Freudian psychology is still applied, and Freudian psychoanalysis is still actively used today and according to the Science Council, **[Science](http://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/)** is...

> ...the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on **evidence**.

**It is in the scientific evidence where the support of the Freudian approach is limited**. However, Freud's ideas have never been extensively assessed scientifically. For instance, there is no unambiguous evidence that psychoanalysis works [(Horgan, 1996)](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0aa5/18b6dda4917ff48163ed86c7aff28753b6d5.pdf) and supporters of Freud’s theories are believed to be influenced mainly on the confirming evidence, while they largely ignore the disconfirming cases [(Shermer, 2011)](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/). Indeed, Sulloway [(Dufresne, 2007)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258332565_Psychoanalysis_and_Pseudoscience_Frank_J_Sulloway_Revisits_Freud_and_His_Legacy) argues that...

> The greatest failing of psychoanalysis is its blatant rejection of the
> scientific method. Without such methods for critical thinking, a
> discipline inevitably drifts from one pseudoscientific system of
> belief to another.

It should be stressed, however, that the human psyche is extremely complex and largely not understood. Other theories that are generally regarded as valid science, such as the string theory in astrophysics have never been proven either, and the relativity theory of Einstein took about [hundred years to be proven right](http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2016/02/einsteins-theory-of-relativity).

Indeed, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic [(Shermer, 2011)](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/). [As covered in this answer](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/17702) to [Does suppressing a desire make it more powerful?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/15345/does-suppressing-a-desire-make-it-more-powerful), Freud's work is derived from empirical evidence and backed up with high profile journal articles. Nonetheless, in the gray area between science and pseudoscience, according to eminent critics such as [Karl Popper](https://search.proquest.com/docview/1293531417?pq-origsite=gscholar), [Frank Cioffi](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9026176/Professor-Frank-Cioffi.html), and [Adolf Grünbaum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_Psychoanalysis), the theories of Freud are generally placed in the area of pseudoscience as they are seen as [non-falisifiable](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

Many authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):

* it is not scientific, and
* its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific." (Hansson, 2008)

With regard to Hansson's first point, [a PsychologyToday article (2016)](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate) points out that

> psychology was defined by the application of scientific method(s) and psychologists conduct valuable research and have developed some key insights into animal behavior, cognition, consciousness, and the human condition.

Hansson, has since updated his definition of pseudoscience to an "improved version" ([Hansson, 2013](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pc4OAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA61&dq=Hansson%2C%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&lr&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q=Hansson,%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&f=false))

**References**

* [Dufresne, T. (2007) Psychoanalysis and Pseudoscience: Frank J. Sulloway Revisits Freud and His Legacy, Dufrense, T (Ed.) *Against Freud: Critics Talk Back* Stanford: Stanford University Press](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258332565_Psychoanalysis_and_Pseudoscience_Frank_J_Sulloway_Revisits_Freud_and_His_Legacy)
* Hansson, S. O. (1996). *Defining Pseudoscience*. Philosophia Naturalis, 33(1): pp. 169—176  
  **Still to find DOI/PMID reference**
* [Hansson, S. O. (2008) *Science and Pseudo-Science*. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition) [Online]](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science)
* [Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In: Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. (Eds.) *The philosophy of pseudoscience*, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 61-77.](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pc4OAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA61&dq=Hansson%2C%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&lr&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q=Hansson,%20S.%20O.%20(1996).%20Defining%20Pseudoscience.&f=false)
* [Horgan, J. (1996). Why Freud isn’t dead. Scientific American, 275(6), 106-111](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0aa5/18b6dda4917ff48163ed86c7aff28753b6d5.pdf). or [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24993497)
* [PsychologyToday (2016) The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate [Online]](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate)
* [Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience?. Scientific American, 305(3), 92-92](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience). or [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26002803)

**Supporting network posts**

* [Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/8364/is-there-anything-in-freudian-psychoanalytic-theory-that-is-scientifically-sound)
* [Why did Karl Popper criticize Freud's theories?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/12451/why-did-karl-popper-criticize-freuds-theories)

**Note**

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Good answer +1.  A couple of notes worth addressing however: Testability (which also requires falsifiability) is the main criteria of a scientific theory that Freud fails to meet.  While some aspects of Freud's ideas have been tested; other aspects are not actually testable. And "Proof" is not applicable in science (it's a term used in math and logic which are primarily deductive, while science is largely inductive).  You probably meant that string theory has never been tested, and that Einstein's theories continue to be put to the test.  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg thanks! Please [see here in meta](https://cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/community-answer-for-questions-on-freudian-psychology). I am turning this answer into a community answer. I would like to invite people to edit the answer such that it represents the community opinion. The topic interests me a lot, but admittedly it is outside of my comfort zone. Please edit the answer (and the question) if you think it needs editing.  
> **username_1**: Kihlstrom's deconstruction of Freud's legacy probably deserves a mention  http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm  
> **username_1**: Grunbaum's book had received extensive commentary in its day, in particular in BBS, [Volume 9 - Issue 2 - June 1986](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/issue/E9C8D7C532E4D1F26AE581D9E310F238).  
> **username_4**: I think the bit of "the relativity theory of Einstein took about hundred years to be proven right" is not correct. It gives many predictions, most of them had been confirmed in a couple decades after its publication. The gravitational wave is one of them, but because of limited technology that it couldn't be confirmed sooner. But in general it had been accepted to mainstream physics longs ago.  
> **username_4**: I waver at correcting that bit in the answer, because it would affect the conclusion: I think, although we can say that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience because of lacking falsifiable evidence, we cannot say that it doesn't have merit. At least it can give us a different perspective to describe a problem. Is that correct?  
> **username_2**: Please see [this meta post](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2373/7604)  
> **username_6**: "the relativity theory of Einstein took about hundred years to be proven right." I'm astonished by the source used for this affirmation. The Theory of Relativity started to gather strong evidences in 1919 barely 15 years after initial publication. Evidences has been piling up since then. So many things wrong with that article I can't even start it... "proof" of a science theory, saying gravitational waves evidences was "prove" for entire theory instead of the particular prediction, etc.  
> **username_6**: That whole paragraph could be rewritten. What is "valid science"?, theoretical is diff from empirical, Theory of strings is pure theoretical, haven't gathered any empirical evidence yet. There are some better examples like the Newtonian gravity theory (supersed by Einstein's) and the Germ theory of disease (which was discredit for centuries).  

---

