He started modern psychiatry in line with the level of science that existed in that period. There is no “science of what dreams mean” there can be no scientific study of the patterns of types of dreams and their correlation to what a valid interpretation might be BECAUSE its an interpretation.

You’re writing like someone who has no idea about earlier psychoanalysis or the development of modern psychology which almost always is taught as having started with Jung and Freud because they started it as we conceive of it today.

That’s not a sign of having been “discredited”.

Relying on the rationalist lens of scientific positivism as an authority for an area of study focused on the irrational, is a ridiculous approach.

“Well Kevin we did some tests on your father and the body of your pet chicken that died last week, and found no connection between the two that would explain why the chicken spoke with his voice in your dream”

No shit. No shit "Freud hasn’t been tested or found to be credible by science"

…and ergo, claims to his, or his case studies having been discredited aren’t actually substantiated by literature.

That’s why the term “discredited” is being used rather than debunked, because there’s no claims of physical fact being made that can be “scientifically disproven”. Science not having proven something isn’t the same as science having discredited it.

That’s the point. It’s the analysis of the meaning of dreams and the mechanisms of persona and identification. They not physical or objective phenomena.

You can’t open a person and find their persona or id, or subconscious and test them with the scientific method so all I get from that being the standard of your response is that you’re uninformed on either the nature of early psychoanalysis, the nature of science, or both.

It also hints at the idea that Freud’s writing “have been discredited” as being an off hand dismissal on the basis of “I don’t like what I’ve heard about it” rather than anything more substantial than that.

Eg. It’s a subjective opinion rather than some set moment in intellectual history that has a wrong and right outcome.

So I’m going with the idea that Freud’s views are subjective but impactful enough to have defined an entirely new field of the study of the mind. I’m going with this as that’s what’s taught in most psychology courses, they don’t teach that he was discredited, in fact you usually read his case studies (eg. The rat man and others), and some of his essays as the starting point to learning about psychology.

I’m going instead with the idea that he and Jung were early. In the same sense that Aristotle or Lister were early.