Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Why would it be interesting that I venerate the father of modern psychology or possibly the greatest philosopher (maybe even thinker) in history? They had to be wrong first so that someone else could build on them and be right. Then those people are built on, then them. That's science. Besides, they both broke ground in ways that are very rare in scientific development. That earns my eternal veneration.
BTW, Aristotle was also arguably the first actual physicist.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/3494 |
I think that it's strange to call someone the father of a field of study. Freud was a popular figure both in some areas of psychology and in western society generally. However, if I was going to name a father of psychology, I wouldn't name him. I'd probably give that title to Wilhelm Wundt. He started the first psychological laboratory.
I think that people give too much credence to Freud's ideas today. It's beyond veneration. He was important to the history of psychology, but the field has progressed. To apply much of his perspective today is akin to using the Bohr model of the atom to understand chemistry or physics.
EDIT: I suppose you might call Freud the father of clinical psychology, but even in that field, I might choose someone like Charcot.