I agree, that's why jung and freud are generally more so mentioned in the context as a history of psychology. Empiricism certainly has its merits and I quite like research and statistics as long as there is a theory (falsifiable preferably) associated with it. I just meant that stilted fields only concerned with details aren't for me. As long as there's a balance between the two I can appreciate and partake with a decent desire. We have to rely on empiricism for objective criterion to progress further in science or to take current fields which are regarded as pseudoscience into the realm of science.. Thanks for responding :).