[omginternets]

>Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt, what will "rational" people base their understanding on?

This is not a new notion in the least. The "rational" people will continue doing what they've always done: revising their conclusions.

Science is a process, and while we can question the notion of "scientific progress" in philosophical terms, this is neither a new idea nor evidence that science doesn't work. It's certainly not evidence that science is no better than irrational thinking.

>Carl Jung claimed one of the chief factors responsible for mass brainwashing is scientific rationality.

Few people take psychoanalysts seriously these days, in large part because of their long record of absurd claims and shoddy clinical work. Jungian theory has it's place in a conversation about literary theory, but not in a conversation about science.

[drumdance]

I don't know about psychoanalysis as defined by Freud and Jung, but therapy in general is an intensely personal experience.

I'm sure there are scientific aspects that can be brought to bear on a situation, but for a lot of people the "literary theory" part is just as helpful. Especially when you stop to think how much neurosis is fueled by pop culture (i.e. status envy).

[omginternets]

>but therapy in general is an intensely personal experience.

And empirically speaking, psychoanalytic therapy has a piss-poor record in dealing with mental illness.

If you're looking for spiritual guidance, then maybe a psychoanalyst can help. If you're looking for clinical efficacy, they demonstrably don't.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to make a relevant Google Scholar query, but be careful not to confuse psychoanalysis with clinical psychology.

> for a lot of people the "literary theory" part is just as helpful.

Fine, but this is a conversation about psychology as a science.