Talk:Psychology and Alchemy

Extensive revisions
I've revised the introductory section of this article and updated all the tags. I don't plan to add the many references asked for by the tags, or to fill in the empty sections. An ambitious editor could to that by consulting the extensive online chapter abstracts that are referred to in the introductory section. (I just don't have the time.) Lou Sander (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking for the Moon
Wikipedia is right to steer toward rigor, but who exactly is going to take the time to make citations in an academic sense? Here is my lay-understanding... in something like a history, multiple viewpoints are inevitable, and some kind of "correctness" is gained by examining those viewpoints critically, making synthesis and looking for authoritative publications doing the same. In a unique work of psychological theory, this is not the situation.. instead every point of view or work of scholarship will just lead to .. more points of view and more works of scholarship -- there is no correct answer.

Some people argue that psychology cannot be a science for reasons along these lines.. Jung is one of the great minds on the topic in the modern era, and this work is part of that. I do not think Wikipedia Guidlelines on citations need to overbear on this article, since no amount of citation will result in a "correct" article. I would rather enjoy the article than be nagged by prominent and unavoidably loud visual tagging that insists on something that is not really what is missing here. 75.101.48.113 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)