Is psychoanalysis science?

I’m familiar with syllogistic arguments, but hardly an expert. In a recent debate about logical fallacies, I made the following points. So-called logical fallacies do not apply to inherently sound arguments (much as, for example, libel isn’t libel if the statement is true). Therefore, it is logically sound to "appeal" to numbers or to authorities IF the majority or the authority being cited: (1) has legitimate expertise on the topic (e.g., a doctor, not a mechanic on a medical matter); (2) is cited only in the area of its expertise (e.g., don't cite computer programmers on a biological question); and (3) the subject-matter experts generally agree on the statement (as, for instance, most oncologists agree that smoking is a cause of lung cancer). In other words, it is perfectly logical to accept as valid the consensus of lung-cancer researchers that smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer. I may have phrased my case ineptly, but I wonder if my argument is correct, or at least on the right track. Thank...

Did teleological arguments give us reasonable grounds to believe in a Creator before Darwin?

From reading these pages it strikes me that almost all philosophers in the Amherst group are not religious (Professor Heck is a notable exception). Is this true of philosophy departments in the English-speaking world, generally? I suspect it is, and, if so, what are the ramifications? Do the religious types know they are right - surely a presupposition of their faiths - and do they consider it their role in philosophy to convert doubters? The 'it-works-for-me' anecdotal/testimonial religious argument is surely as worthless in philosophy as it is in, say, pseudosciences like homeopathy, however. Shrugging one's shoulders because one has absolute certainty in one's religion surely doesn't pass muster if one is a professional philosopher whose job it is to explain one's philosophical worldview to one's students? Is the only recourse to be a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, which doesn't work? I can't see any way round this. Your thoughts are very welcome and thanks in advance.

Are humans capable of imagining things, that are not based on other things they've already seen, or a combination of things they have already seen? For instance if I ask a kid to imagine a new animal (there I'm already using things I know 'animal'), he/she will most likely come up with something like a elephant feeted, giraffe necked, winged, crocodile or somewhere in that fashion. Now of course some people are more creative, but when you look at e.g. art, again what you get are the elephants with long feet, crazily constructed houses, people in all kinds of strange and surreal forms. But in the end it always seems completely based on things we've perceived in the past. What is your view on this, are humans capable of coming up with something 'new'? This raises the question, what do you consider 'new' (not based on things we've seen/heard/perceived in any way before)? This also draws me to the question if there is knowledge which is not acquired by learning? I hope some of you are interested in answering...

Does one good turn deserve another? Intuitively, when someone does something for me which I perceive as kind and selfless, I feel disposed to perform a similarly "kind" action for that person - more so than for some other person. But, if faced with the choice of selflessly helping person A, who once helped me, or person B, with whom I have no history, is there any ethical reason (other than the possible value of my intuition) why I should help person A? Why should the "good turn" which person A did me yesterday have a legitimate bearing on my ethical decision today?

Does the fact that other religions exist give us reason to disbelieve any one religion, or is this not a relevant piece of evidence?

Presently I am a first year philosophy major and I am interested in taking an Introduction to Symbolic logic course next year. However, I am worried that since my background in math is very weak, taking that class would just be torture for me. I was wondering how math-dependent is symbolic logic? I recently studied the informal and formal fallacies in an ethics class which I found to be easy...does that mean anything? Thanks in advance for the reply.

I am curious: What are some questions of the philosophers? Alexander George, Noga Arikha, Amy Kind, Thomas Pogge, etc., we see your names, but we do not know your own inquiries. It would be novel to read and ponder the questions of those brave enough to answer our questions. And might one also learn by extrapolation, by thinking about a question new to them?--that is, the site can remain educational by shedding new light on a dim part of philosophy: the branch of asking questions. I would like to see a list of questions posed by the panelists.

Rene Descartes established that the only thing we can be certain of is that we exist. (I think, therefore I am.) Is there anything else we can be certain of, or is everything else perception?