南航北方分公司今年夏秋航季新增3条航线

Question

I'm writing this in order to get clarity why a question was voted closed. I have already voted to reopened and want to state my reasons but also want to ask for clarification why members of the community think otherwise. More broadly I am looking for a standard, because I see question of much poorer "opinion"-type quality stay open.

My first point is that it's important to recognize that a field like History of Science and Mathematics has opinion as its topic. Questions of the a notion of what is consider "science", "scientific", and "the scientific method" over time is very much at the core of history of science.

In my view the question "Was Freud a scientist? If so, does this mean psychoanalysis is a scientific method?" falls squarely within this question of the history of interpretation of what is scientific. My own answer to the question falls precisely within this scope. While I recognize that the question is unfocused and could use some tightening up, I believe that the scope is not only of interest but important. I would love to hear views that explain why this question should be closed and what harm is done if in fact it remains open. I would also be interested in suggestions what edits would allow it to be reopened. Should it be a community-wiki that traces historical opinions of the judgement of psychoanalysis and specifically Freud's work with respect to scientific demarcation?

To undergirth my view that the judgement that a post is opinion-based is difficult in this context is in my view exemplified by this question: Why did systems theory never gain popularity? The responses and comments make clear that the presumption and opinion presented in the question itself is not well-founded and perhaps in some sense even false. Yet this question, which I personally would deem more opinion driven has not been voted closed and I am unclear how the standard works when essentially ahistoric opinion claims can stay open, yet a question, like the one on Freud's reception, which has plenty of historic traces and can be answered with sourced material is closed.

This said, my personal stance is to leave open when there is some value, and instead suggest corrections. There is not a single comment to the Freud question that even suggests an improvement, before it was closed.

In summary it is my view that the question on the reception of Freud and the judgements if his work as scientific (or not) is very much central to History of Science and Mathematics and hence should be reopened. I hope this is a proper topic for the HoSM:Meta.

Answer 1

There are two things wrong with the question.

The second “If Freud was a scientist does this mean that psychoanalysis is a science?” is so obviously logically flawed that the antagonism towards first question is not surprising.

However the problem with the first question “was Freud a scientist?” is independent of this. The question is not one of the history of science, but of the philosophical idea of a scientist. The use of the subjective question — matter of opinion — option is a convenient way of avoiding having to write an explicit “other reason” to vote to close. However the opinion of what a scientist is is quite different from that of why systems theory didn’t catch on. In expressing my opinion on the latter I might say (if I knew anything about the topic) that it failed to solve any major problems, or it was inferior to some other approach — arguments based on historical facts. Freud may be history, but one’s opinion of what science is is not.

NB I did not even read the original, and I have not enough reputation here to be able to vote to close.