Hasn’t Jung’s work been refuted?

Huh? Where did you hear that?

Actually, “refuted” is the wrong word. Karl Popper criticized psychoanalysis as being irrefutable. “No description whatever of any logically possible human behaviour can be given which would turn out to be incompatible with the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, or of Adler, or of Jung.” [Objective Knowledge] Popper wrote lots about the problems with irrefutable theories. If a theory explains everything, it really explains nothing. If it’s always right, then you can never improve upon it. And so on.

Hmm.. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. But you'd have difficulty finding a psychoanalyst who would claim their views of the psyche are irrefutable or are always right... That sounds more like someone with a huge ego rather than a problem with the entire field of study itself.

Maybe you (or Popper) are trying to argue that there are some human behaviors outside the scope of what it means to be human? My, so far limited, understanding of Jungian Psychotherapy is that it does not view anything presenting inside a person's experience as being "wrong." A psychoanalyst won't view someone with, say OCD, as being broken with something that needs to be removed. This is part of them, part of their human condition. The psychoanalyst's direction would be more relational, helping to manage or integrate this part of them, rather than de-humanizing or attempting to remove it.

So are you talking about some individuals with big egos saying they can't be wrong, some psychotherapeutic ways of looking at people as having problems that need to be removed, or something else that I am missing?

I also don't endorse labeling an entire field of study as "refuted" because one person criticized it... That feels pretty extreme.

Hmm.. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. But you'd have difficulty finding a psychoanalyst who would claim their views of the psyche are irrefutable or are always right...

Yes, they’re not generally aware of this property of psychoanalysis. Nor are proponents of virtually any other pseudoscience.

[I should have added: and if they are, they’re typically not aware that irrefutability is a bad thing.]

Maybe you (or Popper) are trying to argue that there are some human behaviors outside the scope of what it means to be human?

No.

So are you talking about some individuals with big egos saying they can't be wrong, some psychotherapeutic ways of looking at people as having problems that need to be removed, or something else that I am missing?

Something you’re missing. I’m saying psychoanalysis as a field has huge problems you’d want to learn about before pursuing it.

Regarding the word “refuted”, I did follow up saying it’s not the right word in this context. Psychoanalysis can’t be refuted—that’s the problem. Rather than “refuted” or even “criticized”, I should have said “dismissed” or “outdated” or “obsolete” or something like that.

But do note that it’s not uncommon for one person to refute entire fields, as Newton did with Keplerian physics, and as Einstein did with Newtonian physics. Nothing “extreme” about that.

OK then, thanks. 👍