Psychology vs. Neuroscience

Psychology is flawed. It, along with psychiatry, was conceived at a time in which the 'mind' was not greatly understood. It employed rational reflection upon different concepts of the 'mind' a.k.a philosophy, and, as such, it is not as deeply rooted in true science itself a.k.a observation. Case in point, Sigmund Freud is a widely studied and highly held figure in the field of psychology and psychoanalysis, and yet the large majority of the notions he broached to the scientific community are simply untrue. The id, the psyche, the 'subconscious' and 'conscious' minds, these are things that are not truly representative of the 'mind.' And how have we come to know this to be true? Neuroscience.

The term the 'mind' is a term which has arisen from ancient, rudimentary psychology that implies the 'mind' is an entity all its own. It is not. It is a function of the nervous system, and calling that function by a term which implies a separate entity is attributing to that function some transcendental, metaphysical nature. This is stone-age thinking in science, in REALITY, and a so-called 'science' that employs the use of the term 'mind' on an official basis; that employs the simply untrue assertions of Sigmund Freud (who by the way used drugs); and has an integral component of philosophy imbued within it, can never be entirely accurate. Many psychology magazines publish articles which have no scientific ground and are, in some cases, blatantly untrue.

But what, then, could be a viable substitute for something so flawed, that is not imbued with thus flaws?

Neuroscience.