Intuition in psychology

I feel like the Rabbi understood my question better than I did,
Perhaps I'll phrase the question differently: How can one prove that a specific psychoanalytic interpretation is accurate?
After all, it's not scientific by Popper's definition, so how can I know that it's actually correct?

In my opinion, you can't. Anyone who is sober understands that psychoanalysis is not a science in the sense of general knowledge that has been accumulated and that can be empirically tested (providing predictions, etc.). These are tools that can sometimes be useful to people who suffer. That's all. And the controversies and different methods will prove that they all claim the same scientific crown. Everyone claims that they are successful (and most of them are equally unjustified).
Therefore, in my opinion, we don't need to check whether it is true, but whether it works (is useful). By the way, to the best of my understanding, even this (therapeutic success) usually doesn't happen. Even when a therapist succeeds in something, it usually happens because of one of two things: 1. Placebo (the patient's trust, regardless of what he himself does). 2. Because he has good intuition, without direct connection to his disciplinary knowledge (which perhaps gives him some general orientation, at most, if at all).

So philosophically, this is nonsense and it's about the psychologist's subjective feelings?

As far as I know, there are studies (I don't know how to cite them, hence the disclaimer) that show that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has a greater effect than other treatments. Since there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the treatment method the therapist specializes in and 1 and 2, there seems to be proof of therapeutic success in this.

Yishai, this is really not agreed upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms

My question is not about the therapeutic successes of analysis but about its philosophy.
For example, Freud claims that a child does not want to get out of the bath because it reminds him unconsciously of the warmth and the wrapping he experienced in the womb.
The following basic assumptions are here:
A. There is a part of man of which he is unaware.
B. The man wants to return to the state of ancient pleasure that he remembers when he is in the water.
According to Freud, this is a profound experience because it is the first experience on which his entire emotional world is built, the Dinkota version.
Conclusion: The reason why man likes to be in the water is because he wants to return to the womb, and he does it in this way.
Sounds quite reasonable.
But how can one ”prove” this or ”deny” this?

You could test what happens with embryos grown in an incubator - maybe that would have an effect (if unconscious memories are accumulated mainly in the later stages of pregnancy)

Yes, but then we could say that the bath reminds them of the heat of the incubator. I would have something to say for any proof or denial of the theory.

Yishai, it seems to me that if CBT is successful, this is evidence of my point.
Psychoanalysis makes use of theories about the deep structure of the psyche, exactly what CBT does not do.
I was careful and wrote this about psychoanalysis, although I think it is also true for most of psychology.
Even if there are parts of psychology for which there is success - I assume it is mainly in the area of therapeutic success and not in the area of confirming theoretical knowledge about the psyche. The widespread disapproval of psychoanalysis today is also a result of the fact that even a psychologist who believes in therapeutic successes does not trust theories about the structure of the psyche.

I was only referring to therapeutic success, not to the question of theory.

It was not mentioned here, but Popper's criteria were stated in relation to psychoanalysis (originally by Adler but including Freud), which is a theory that can explain anything and cannot be refuted and is therefore scientific.

Therefore, it is not scientific of course.

Okay, but my question is not whether it is scientific but whether it is true.

To the point –

It is recommended to read the articles on this matter published on the blog of the scientific skeptic Gilad Diamant – ‘Sharp Thinking’ (and here is a recommendation for an interesting blog, although it is exaggerated and not always accurate)

Itai,
Yes, it was mentioned. It's not for nothing that I keep talking about psychoanalysis and not about psychology in general (which I just commented on).

Yishai,
Also on the question of the success of the treatment, I talked about the success of the psychoanalytic treatment and not about the psychological treatment in general.