Defining Science and Psychology

Since the inception of psychology in the 19th century (Aumiller, et al., 2007, Stich, 1983) to date, this debate of whether psychology is a science or not has ensued. It is not simple to determine whether psychology is a science or not, as both disciplines are multifaceted and have complex constructs (Fuchs & Milar, 2003, Fuchs & Evans, 2012). To better deal with this debate, it is important to explore what ‘science’ means before delving into whether psychology fits that definition, referring also to the history of philosophy in relation to science and psychology, before weighing up the argument.

Psychology is defined as the study of mind and behavior (Lilienfeld, 2010). On the other hand, in the simplest terms, science has been defined as the search and application of knowledge of social and natural world using evidence-based and systematic methods (Sutton-Smith, 1982). It is made up of a set of common-sense generalization about the human mind that everyone accepts and expect everyone to accept (Lilienfeld, 2004). However, some psychologists have theorized that psychology, at some point, lends itself to philosophy, through various concepts such as empiricism and syllogism and empiricism. For instance, believers in rationalism argue that if the truth of each premise is accepted someone, then that truth is followed by a conclusion and that they cannot draw any other legitimate conclusion (Haaga, 2004). On the other hand, believers in syllogism argue that when a group believes that something is true, then that truth apply to every single member of that group (Armstrong, 1947). Lastly, believers in empiricism argue that knowledge can only be acquired through one’s experiences or senses and therefore to acquire knowledge, one must engage in a systematic measurement and observation before developing a generalization about a phenomenon (Falender et al 2004).

A clearer definition of science was conducted by Karl Popper, who argued that scientists, to know, begin with hypotheses and goes ahead to falsify those hypotheses by evidence (Levinson & Thomas 1997). Instead of looking for supportive evidence, scientists go out of their way to test and refute their own evidence (Fuchs & Milar, 2003). Therefore, based on the theory of falsification, science is all about falsification; not confirmation.

However, not all areas of science deal with tangible evidence but also in theory. For instance, scientists explain big bang theory as science but cannot be 100% proven, but is still considered scientific, though theory (Aumiller et al, 2007). It is a double standard for scientist to claim that science deals with evidence yet there are some scientific studies that are only evident in theory. This question the basis of arguments against psychology as a science based on the argument that it lacks tangible evidence (Fuchs & Milar, 2003).

Critics also argue that a core problem with calling psychology a science is that it has multiple paradigms and does not have similar characteristics as those of paradigmatic sciences as suggested in Kuhn’s arguments about science (Aumiller et al, 2007). Kuhn (1970) argues that in paradigmatic sciences, discoveries are made but the paradigm does not change; that science does not evolve gradually towards truth as psychology does, science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift (Berry, et al., 2011). Critics claim that psychology is not a science as it has no agreed paradigm; there is no consensus of what it is now or might be in future, what its fundamental theories are, what its main findings and frameworks are, as well as how it integrates with other body of sciences (Stanley, 2013). There are many conflicting approaches and the subject is so diverse that researchers in different fields have little in common (Fuchs & Milar, 2003).

Clark, Pritchard, & Vaesen, (2012) and Skinner (1990) extrapolate that for a subject to qualify as ‘science’, it must have the basic elements of scientific methods, scientific mindsets as well as a knowledge system that is based on science. At the foundation of the argument for Psychology as a science, making advances in this subject requires training in scientific methods; such as research design, data gathering, and statistical techniques (Berry, et al., 2011).

Another argument for psychology as a science is the branches that use its reductionism, whereby psychologists reduce complex phenomenon into basic components for purposes of understanding processes and events in their smallest and simpler forms (Putnam, 1973). For instance, through reductionism, psychologists can focus on the impact of neurons and neurological processes on human actions and thinking, or genetics on human behaviour (Koestler & Smythies, 1971). Similarly, psychologists apply reductionism in cognitive psychology to understand how people acquire, process, store and use information (Slingerland, 2008). Behaviourism provides a sound example of a psychology subject area that uses scientific methods that have high validity and reliability, as well as highly measurable qualities between variables, making a strong case for it being a science (Passer & Smith 2004, Stern 2000). For instance, the Pavlov experiment was the first to understand the concept of conditioning and the this has been repeated in other studies such as Watson’s Little Albert’s Experiment (Samelson. 1980). The existence of behaviourism experiments such as Pavlov and Watson’s experiments with reliable, valid and measurable results is a good argument for psychology as science.

Cognitive psychologists provide further support for the view of studying psychology as a science, implementing this approach towards unobservable mental processes, developing precise hypotheses and theories, and conduct controlled experiments on behaviour to confirm or refute them (Fuchs & Milar, 2003). Nonetheless, Berry, et al (2011) argue that much of psychology is not observable so cannot be accurately measured or tested. So many variables influence behaviour its impossible to fully control variables in most cases (Bozionelos & Bennett 1999).

In conclusion, psychology can be considered a science, based on the way a large portion of its branches apply scientific methods in understanding consciousness, behavior and cognition. It is evident that psychology uses various scientific methods such as reductionism to understand human cognitive capabilities and behavior that have proven reliability and validity. Though there may be some areas that lend themselves more to philosophy through various philosophical concepts such as empiricism and syllogism and empiricism.

References

Armstrong, C. P. (1947). On defining psychology as a profession. American Psychologist, 2(10), 446.

Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Psychology Press.

Bozionelos, G., & Bennett, P. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour as predictor of exercise: The moderating influence of beliefs and personality variables. Journal of health psychology, 4(4), 517-529.

Fuchs, A. H., & Evans, R. B. (2012). Psychology as a science. Handbook of Psychology , Second Edition, 1.

Falender, C. A., Cornish, J. A. E., Goodyear, R., Hatcher, R., Kaslow, N. J., Leventhal, G., ... & Grus, C. (2004). Defining competencies in psychology supervision: A consensus statement. Journal of clinical psychology, 60(7), 771-785.

Haaga, D. A. (2004). Defining psychology: What can it do for us?. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1227-1229.

Khun, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago.

Levinson, R., & Thomas, J. (1997). Science today: problem or crisis?. Routledge.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2004). Defining psychology: Is it worth the trouble?. Journal of clinica l psychology, 60(12), 1249-1253.

Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2004). Psychology: The science of mind and behavior.

Stich, S. P. (1983). From folk psychology to cognitive science: The case against belief. The MIT press.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions. American psychologist, 55(5), 523.

Samelson, F. (1980). JB Watson's Little Albert, Cyril Burt's twins, and the need for a critical science.

Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind?. American psychologist, 45(11) , 1206.