User talk:24.225.95.253

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This message is regarding the article Psychoanalysis. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. // Pathoschild 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This message is regarding the article Psychoanalysis. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // Pathoschild 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I keep adding the generally consensus point that in the scientific community psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, and it keeps being erased. How is this vandalism? The fact that the POV is entirely favorable toward psychoanalysis, not to mention historically inaccurate, is disturbing. There is little, if any data, that analysis works. Yet nary a peep of this.

I suggest you look at the definition of pseudoscience, and you will see that psychoanalysis meets it. Further, I suggest you look ath the history of psychoanalysis, and you will see that the claim Freud invented it is incorrect. -- 24.225.95.253

There is no consensus against psychoanalysis. The wording employed strongly suggests that, and thus it's POV. Feel free to mention studies that question Psychoanalysis' validity, point out debate, or correct factual errors. Do not simply reword it to favour a conclusion that general consensus opposes. Please direct further comments to the page's talk page, where there is already a discussion concerning this. // Pathoschild 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


What do you mean there is no conscensus? Psychoanalysis is thoroughly marginalized in the medical and scientific communities. There is a consensus against psychoanalysts--both in psychiatry and psycology. Look at the departments at major teaching centers. The number of analysts is small and getting smaller. In the two psychiatry department with which I have been affiliated, there are fewer than 10% of the faculty that is analytically trained. Further, analysts hold no major posittions. Psychoanalysts are a rapidly shrinking portion of mental health treatment.

Further, go to medline and make a query (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed) about psychoanalysis. Try something such as psychoanalys, depression, study." You will find few if any scientifically valid papers. Instead, you will find papers about bizarre theories not supported by reproducible data. Try the same search about cognitive thrapy or some form of cognitive therapy or some other scientifically valid technique. You'll find thousands of papers.

It is a pseudoscience, not a medical science.

Why is it non neutral to point out that a treatment that has no proof of efficacy and costs tens of thousands of dollars may be harmful to the patient? Next you'll be saying that magnetic therapy is legitimate.

Analysts generally have given up as regarding it as a science. I will provide a link to this idea in a bit.

I pointed out that it meets the requirements of pseudoscience and posted links to materials discussing this. The links were erased, and you fail to answer why the wikipedia to explain why the wikipedia adopts such a radical and neutral pov. -- 24.225.95.253

Argue on the talk page, not with me. -.- // Pathoschild 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.225.95.253.html"