He's also a philosopher, historian and cognitive scientist. He has received a Membership of the National Academy of Sciences (which is an award given to scientists), a Kyoto prize in Basic Sciences, a medal from a German academy of science, an American Psychology Association Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Psychology, etc.
These are relevant areas and merits with regards to judging whether a discipline is scientific or pseudo-scientific.
> Feynman? He's a physicist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?
He is one of the most famous scientists in the world, had an extremely significant scientific career, won a Nobel prize in a scientific area and a National Medal of Science.
If you don't know why such a person would be extremely qualified to distinguish a scientific discipline from a pseudo-scientific one, I'm deeply sorry for you.
Also, don't ignore all the other experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, cognitive science, philosophy, history, etc. who arrived at the same conclusion.
Although, I am interested in knowing why you think that you are more qualified than these people to judge whether a discipline is scientific or not.
Because this doesn't pass the smell test.
You can always provide positive evidence for existence of something if you find a hole in provided evidence then you should then be extra careful believing the hypothesis. Or in Black Swan lingo skeptical empiricism.
If you actually had some relevant information you would post it immediately, because that is in your interest in this discussion
Good luck…
Feynman? He's a physicist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?
...
This list very much sounds like something the marketing team of an online therapy startup would put together and post to Wikipedia and tell their colleagues to contribute to.