The further one moves away from their field, the more we should disregard someone's opinions regardless of how smart or accomplished they are in their field.
And Pauling lived a remarkably long life for someone who was hanging around in chemistry labs in the 1920s. Someone with that background dying at 93 is like a regular person dying at 113. So I would be careful to dismiss his ideas regarding health outright, even though most studies have been unable to confirm his claims. There is still plenty of serious research happening into Vitamin C megadoses, so clearly, not all scientists agree with the idea that this is quackery. And even if it indeed were completely and utterly wrong, it is still not even remotely comparable to the sheer audacity of Lacan's bullshit.
To be a bit more direct (though please be assured that I mean no disrespect): bringing up Lacan in this conversation tells me you don’t know psychological science very well. You’re missing out. :)
Lacan is one of the most famous psychologists of all time. Probably only Freud and Jung would rank above him in that regard. That in itself is a pretty big indictment of the field, since the latter two are not much better.
But the problem is not that Lacan was spouting garbage while being a psychologist. The problem is that other psychologists were tolerating that garbage, instead of ostracizing him. That's as if an immunologist who spreads conspiracy theories about vaccines containing microchips somehow continued to be invited to conferences, and have his peers listen to him and discuss and debate his "theories".
It's obvious that the field as a whole is incapable of cleanly separating itself from left-wing politics, philosophical intellectualism, and outright nonsense.
Modern cognitive science looks like this:
- https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2
- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002...
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100...
Again, with all due respect, you very clearly do not know what you are talking about. Nobody takes Lacan seriously, even in the lowest tier of politicized social-science (which in turn is not taken terribly seriously by cognitive scientists).
If you're actually interested in human perception, cognition and behavior, I am happy to point you in the right direction.
The psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, is still a part of psych major curricula around the world. Therapists with psychology degrees still practice psychoanalysis, which, while not identical to what was happening 100 years ago, is still strongly influenced by Freud and Jung. Therefore, claims that the field has left its past behind just aren't credible. And I'm not even going to go into psychology's entanglement with postmodern intellectualism and the political left.
Your argument hinges on out-of-date notions and false distinctions.
Again, if you were actually curious about psychology, you’d want to engage with the scientific psychology literature instead of putting on blinders and insisting that the psychoanalytic tradition is the only relevant one. I’m left to conclude that you’re more interested in looking down your nose at a field you don’t respect than actually understanding anything.
Let us know if that changes. I’m always happy to point you towards the interesting literature in whatever subfield you’re curious about.
That's not comparable to the luminiferous aether, which was actually a reasonable assumption once the wave nature of light was recognized, because most waves need a medium to propagate through. Aether theory is wrong, but it's not nonsensical.
But a psychologist makes some assumptions, later to be found wrong, it is complete bullshit, con artists, the entire field is corrupt.
Do you see the false dichotomy here? You are so biased you can't even see the problem.
Scientific psychology is a completely different animal.
There's lots of fault to go around, everyone is doing their best!
The Motte and Bailey (which I do not happen to believe is intentional fwiw) is that "physics" is implicit to the assertion.