Who's the smartest?

[Bigfella]

I've often heard that Freud and Jung have been 'discredited' and their theories don't hold much sway these days.  Who gets to decide?  Maybe each field has a handful of experts who are generally recognised as top dogs.  I'm aware of the concept of peer review, but is that not just an opinion?  I suppose when Einstein and Hawking were alive they would have called the shots in science and maths.  Maybe some of you are bona fide intellectuals and can tell us what the score is.

[Twit 2]

It's easy to say people were wrong in retrospect. Aristotle got a hammering for being wrong about shit, as did Freud, but it's relative to their time innit. There needs to be a thesis before antithesis.

[Sebastian Cobb]

It's easy to say people were wrong in retrospect. Aristotle got a hammering for being wrong about shit, as did Freud, but it's relative to their time innit. There needs to be a thesis before antithesis.

I kind of get the feeling it's definitely more of a thing in the social sciences? where theories seem to be directly competing, i feel like while there are competing theories in maths and physics it seems more iterative, of course things get disproved all the time and thrown out. I could be talking shit though.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

I'm the smartest.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

I'm the smartest.

I'm currently reading Charles Dickens' " Dombey And Son" on the bus to and from work, thoroughly enjoying it. You're currently thinking of Stephen Graham's arse. Of course you're not the fucking smartest, wise up, son.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

Dumbey And Son more like, right readers?

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

Oh, that's smart. Oooh, that's ever so smart.

[pancreas]

It's easy to say people were wrong in retrospect. Aristotle got a hammering for being wrong about shit, as did Freud, but it's relative to their time innit. There needs to be a thesis before antithesis.

I've heard a lot of Aristotle-bashing, but no-one has yet brought to my attention anything which I would say is out-and-out wrong. I start to wonder if it's a fashion opinion.

[Twit 2]

I've heard a lot of Aristotle-bashing, but no-one has yet brought to my attention anything which I would say is out-and-out wrong.

Spontaneous generation?

[Shit Good Nose]

Got to be Plato hasn't it?  And he named himself after a plate.

[Captain Z]

Proffesor Brain Cocks

[imitationleather]

Got to be Plato hasn't it?  And he named himself after a plate.

You're thinking of Pluto, the cartoon dog who named himself after that thing that used to be a planet.

[Twit 2]

Plute?

[Shit Good Nose]

You're thinking of Pluto, the cartoon dog who named himself after that thing that used to be a planet.

Nono, you're thinking of Bluto who kept trying to rape Olive Oyl (she was the one that wore big work boots for some reason).

[Bigfella]

I've heard a lot of Aristotle-bashing, but no-one has yet brought to my attention anything which I would say is out-and-out wrong. I start to wonder if it's a fashion opinion.

It's been said that he was a bugger for the bottle, and Hobbes was fond of his dram.

[pancreas]

Spontaneous generation?

I agree that doesn't appear to be very well-thought through. Charitably, life had to start somewhere, so spontaneous generation must have happened at some point.

[jamiefairlie]

I agree that doesn't appear to be very well-thought through. Charitably, life had to start somewhere, so spontaneous generation must have happened at some point.

Depends on what you mean by life I suppose. Chemicals combine all the time, it just so happened one time it created a compound that could replicate itself.

[thenoise]

Its Elang Musk

[buttgammon]

I'm inclined to be charitable as possible with Aristotle because, although some of his stuff hasn't exactly aged well over the last few millennia, he's the progenitor of pretty much every strand of philosophy and a lot of the sciences too. I'll never stop being in awe of the scope of his writing.

[poo]

Dunno

[bgmnts]

I'm inclined to be charitable as possible with Aristotle because, although some of his stuff hasn't exactly aged well over the last few millennia, he's the progenitor of pretty much every strand of philosophy and a lot of the sciences too. I'll never stop being in awe of the scope of his writing.

Why is Aristotle getting the nod over Socrates or Plato?

[pancreas]

Normally he doesn't, from my limited experience. People seem to like all the quasi-religious woo-woo of Plato, whereas Aristotle gets a bad rap for being a diligent empiricist.

[buttgammon]

Why is Aristotle getting the nod over Socrates or Plato?

I'm giving him the nod because his work is still of use in philosophy and even in the sciences - he more or less invented marine biology.

[ZoyzaSorris]

Socrates and Plato would have columns in Unherd and CapX these days. Horrible pair and I'm glad they are dead.

[pancreas]

The idea of the Platonic form is just laughably implausible. There's no excuse for it, even 2.5 millennia.

[chveik]

plato is on average far more pleasant to read

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Up the Aris' corner.

I'm aware of the concept of peer review, but is that not just an opinion?  I suppose when Einstein and Hawking were alive they would have called the shots in science and maths.

I don't think anyone gets to be the boss of science, no matter how famous they are. That's why it's called "peer review" and not "underling review". Science lessons were a relatively long time ago now, but the process basically involves one person presenting their work to the scientific community, who then do their damnedest to disprove it in tests. If they can't disprove it, it's good.

[sevendaughters]

even Aristotle would have Leslie Granthamed himself so it's not worth thinking about

[TrenterPercenter]

I've often heard that Freud and Jung have been 'discredited' and their theories don't hold much sway these days.  Who gets to decide?  Maybe each field has a handful of experts who are generally recognised as top dogs.  I'm aware of the concept of peer review, but is that not just an opinion?  I suppose when Einstein and Hawking were alive they would have called the shots in science and maths.  Maybe some of you are bona fide intellectuals and can tell us what the score is.

Freud and Jung have not been "discredited" their ideas have been evolved and massively applied in loads of fields outside of psychology even. 

Notions of a defined universal intelligence are largely nonsense (and racist nonsense going back a century); with what people attribute to "intelligence" i.e. being good at maths as really being good at processing and recall.  Environmental factors such as access to education and early childhood development via interactions with their surrounding are much bigger predictors of intelligence than people are comfortable with for various reasons.

Peer-review is not just an opinion; it's a process (and a difficult one usually); for positivist designs you are giving people the opportunity to replicate your findings.  The whole point of peer-review is to reduce subjective opinions by having other people assess your work.  There are still big problems with it though.

[bgmnts]

Plato did the thing with the shadows in the caves and that didn't he? Plato for me.