Hi Ken,
The dichotomy that you end with (Freud was a Newton-like figure or he should be consigned to the dustbin of history) isn't the best way to think about Freud. First of all, we should concentrate on Freud's work rather than the man himself. Freud's thinking had very many components, some of which are blatantly wrong and others of which were remarkably prescient. One of the problems assessing Freud these days is that it is so widely thought that Freud's work is without value that scientifically-minded people (and here in include many philosophers) do not bother to investigate what he had to say. I was a Freudian psychotherapist before moving to philosophy (in fact, my PhD research was on Freud as a philosopher) so I think I have an informed basis for assessing both the value and deficits of Freudian thought. In the end, I am sympathetic with philosopher of science Clark Glymour's remark that "Freud's thinking about issues in the philosophy of mind is often better than much of what goes on in contemporary philosophy, and it is sometimes as good as the best....[E]ven when Freud had the wrong answer to a question, or refused to give an answer, he knew what the question was and what was at stake in it." Freud ought to be assessed, at least in part, as a naturalistic philosopher of psychology.
David

You are not thinking about science any more clearly than Freud did, when you say that Freud's theories are "wrong". A theory is not wrong until it is proven wrong, and Freud's speculations have not been proven at all. There are better speculations about various problems that Freud addressed, but they have not been proven either. When one is engaged in disciplines like psychology or philosophy, where essentially nothing can be proved, it is best to be humble. Freud introduced many interesting ideas, that are worthy of thinking about, and he can be praised for having done this. His problem was that he thought of himself as a scientist, when he was not doing science.
Allan L.

I'll lend my unstudied opinion to this discussion, only because I heard about, and then read about Freud in the 1960s and 70s, probably long after he had been largely dismissed. I was not educated in the science of psychology, nor in much of anything else at that time. But, his ideas were intriguing, if somewhat bizarre, and I knew several education seekers who may have ultimately benefited from Ziggy's notions about sex and the human being. Having said that much, I think (this is what we do herein) that Freud's legacy is ABOUT where those notions went wrong, and HOW they led psychology to do ask better questions and do better research towards arriving at solutions. I am not sure what a "naturalistic philosopher of psychology" might be. And, I suppose, my comments/opinions echo, at least in part, those of Allan L. In any case, welcome to the forum, David and Allan, if you have not been here before. Oh, by the way, Allan, do I know you? If so, my brother, your high school chum, is doing well and the wife and kids are good too.Synchronicity? Hmmmm...
Newman.

Having re-parsed the comments from David and Allan, I realized that our ideas about Freud are not so different. Dr. Freud had some of it right and some of it wrong. Freud's own mental calamities likely clouded his judgment. So it may be true of other brilliant minds. Thinking alone is laudable and certainly foments genius. But, thinking alone,defectively,leads to faulty logic and ill-conceived conclusions. I suppose this is normal-human. Dennett, like him or no, has often said we need to make mistakes, in order to learn. Yes.I think so too...

ng alone,defectively,leads to faulty logic and ill-conceived conclusions. I suppose this is normal-human. Dennett, like him or no, has often said we need to make mistakes, valentines day quotes valentines day poems valentines day quotes for him valentines day poems for him in order to learn. Yes.I think so too..

弗洛伊德的力量体现在他的作品中。他的作品为人类的心灵描绘了一幅画像(请原谅混杂的比喻)，正如你自己所说，我们直到今天都觉得这幅画像很有吸引力，这也是哈罗德·布鲁姆(Harold Bloom)称他为最伟大的现代作家的原因。在我看来，对于所有后来发现自己被更正确的(即被认为更科学的)科学所取代的科学来说，问题是，它们在多大程度上都利用修辞手段来说服我们，而不是我们所认为的科学?这适用于亚里士多德吗?牛顿?无论如何，不管有没有科学证据，解释弗洛伊德经久不衰的影响(这是哈罗德·布鲁姆理论中的超级比喻)的是作品本身。