I don't think it's any less science, inasmuch as science seeks to explain the natural world. It's just at a higher level of complexity and a different point in the learning curve than more externally observable levels of science.

Would we say that Copernicus was a charlatan or not a scientist because the heliocentric model turned out to be wrong? As you acknowledge, Freud pushed the collective understanding further.

▲

YurgenJurgensen a day ago | parent [-]

The heliocentric model turning out to be wrong made Copernicus more of a scientist. Freud didn’t even make it to the level of falsifiability.

	▲	jrowen a day ago \| parent [-]
		Then how do we know that Freud was "wrong" or "inaccurate" or "just made up" or "a fraud"? It's definitely a lot more murky and there are massive gaps in our understanding between biology and neuroscience and psychology, and fundamental differences and limits on methodology that we may never surpass, but his work still has its place on the timeline of progress does it not? What about something like phrenology? It's easy to laugh at it now and consider its proponents charlatans or lunatics but at a time it was considered a worthy avenue of exploration, that turned out to be a dead end, but that's part of science.