Einstein was mostly right. Freud was very often wrong. And the list of his mistakes is only increasing, Einstein's is not.

Are you even serious? Einstein was wrong about a lot of stuff <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

the fuck

Ever heard of space time? Literally a nonsensical theory.

One example? You said "a lot"

Well he didn't actually do that much

Freud was wrong on one of his most central concepts

Some of his previously thought wrong ideas also come back later being considered right again

Space time was one of his big things

@ETBrooD Can you give an example of something freud was wrong about?

I think a good way to put it is that Freud was explanatory but he's not scientific because he never tried to be predictive.

Freud thought that if you accidentally say a word that you didn't mean to say, it reveals something about your true self

> I think a good way to put it is that Freud was explanatory but he's not scientific because he never tried to be predictive.
@Hexidecimark Says the person who I seriously doubt has read any freud

> Freud thought that if you accidentally say a word that you didn't mean to say, it reveals something about your true self
@ETBrooD That's a real thing though. It isn't always true but sometimes it is.

Freudian slips are definitely real.... <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

It's a BS theory, because it can't be proven.

I've read him in several psych classes, he's not someone who ends up being terribly practical to read

Like I said I've done more with Jung

No theory in psychology can really be proven

Freudian slips are not valid, they're statistical anomalies that are normal and are supposed to happen.

I'm 100% sure that they're real, but whatever man

If nothing in psychology can be proven, then psychology is not science

You're telling me you've never had a Freudian slip? <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Not once in my entire life

@ETBrooD That's not how science works

Yes that is how it works. A theory that can't be proven is not a scientific theory. Falsification is *neccessary* for a scientific theory.

"science" in this context is synonymous with the scientific method. It does not require proof

Are you trolling me?

The scientific method is designed to generate proof my dude

LOL

Phad just posted an infographic that contradicts his claim

This is science

"test with an experiment" => proof of concept

No I didn't. <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

> "test with an experiment" => proof of concept
@ETBrooD <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Your question marks aren't helping you make an argument

Yeah, okayyyy then

@phadreus [Discord's being dumb and won't let me quote anything right now so I just leave out the quote of the argument you referred me to earlier] I'm not sure how I feel about your original argument. While an intelligence/birth rate trade off could be the reason why we have seen no evidence for other super intelligent creatures, it seems quite the leap to take this reason as fact when we have examples of creatures that buck the trend like the crustacean mentioned earlier. It could easily be that another hyper intelligent life form has a direct correlation between intelligence and fertility as opposed to the reverse. I think the water world hypothesis is a far more likely reason for why we see no traces of other hyper-intelligent creatures. They are simply limited by the fact that a lot of landmass is rare on water world's like ours and so intelligence may be contained in sea creatures like dolphins and whales on other worlds. hyper intelligence may be stopped by a limited environment like very little landmass (with our environment being an extremely rare exception) as opposed to an inbuilt intelligence/birth rate trade off in humanity by virtue of simply being a lifeform. However, I see no real flaws with your argument beyond that. If we accept the foundational argument that humanity will cease to exist otherwise and that humanity should continue to exist, then I see no reason why we shouldn't try to keep human subspecies separate and diverse. However, that's the problem. This is one answer among many as to why there is no spacefaring species visiting us. It could just as easily be another very different reason. On a similar note, I remember this study and thought I'd reference it since it's quite related. Apparently, intelligence increases male virility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7767877.stm

You haven't said anything worth making an argument against. @ETBrooD

This is the most basic thing ever in science. Lack of falsifiability = not scientifically valid.

>U GOTTA HAVE ARGUMENT
>NOOO I DON'T NEED ONE
It *is* okay to be wrong phad- look at it this way- you grow from losing in debate. The winner walks away with nothing gained.