teoria sincronicitatii criticata din temelii

Mai jos publicam un extras dintr-o lista de discutii pe subiectul Jung:

Unlike his dream theory and theory of archetypes, Carl Jung's
notion of synchronicity hasn't met with success. The metaphysical system
surrounding the hypothesis includes notions of supernaturalism
(transcendence). This is a religio-philosophical viewpoint, rather than
a scientific. The deleterious consequences are obvious. It undermines
scientific respectability, promotes superstition, and has kindled
obsolete polytheistic ideas in the post-Jungians. There is to date no
scientific evidence to support synchronicity. But the strongest argument
against the synchronistic notion is the fact that it hasn't proved
helpful in any respect. Jung's unitarian model of the human self is
criticized.

Pe scurt, iata cum suna critica teoriei sincronicitatii. I se imputa 1. ca nu este dovedita stiintific si 2 ca este argumentata sau prezentatat intr-un limbaj nestiintific. Ma apuca rîsul. Dar oare exista ceva in stiintele sufletului care este dovedit stiintific? Si ce daca argumentele imprumuta din filozofire si religie, sau suna in maniera asta filosofico-religioasa? Personal am zeci de dovezi de sincronicitate iar cea prezentata de Jung insusi este suficienta.