Critically evaluate the statement ‘psychology is a science’.
Is psychology a science?
In order to answer that question it is vital for us to understand what science is. The definition of science says it is what we can find out about the world. It produces special scientific laws, theories and facts. The method of achieving them is usually research. Research uses hypothesis based on ideas and then tests those hypotheses by experiments (Lewens 2015). To describe psychology, best words are that is the study of behaviour and mind. Behaviour is anything we do- human actions and reactions. While mind means mainly mental processes like feelings, thoughts or memories (Myers 1986). Psychology also studies an influence of mental phenomena on human interactions and interactions with the surrounding. Main feature of psychology is its dependence on systematic methods of collecting data and basing on them developing thesis, outcomes of research to better understand our behaviours. Thanks to psychology common beliefs and misconceptions about the behaviour and mental process can be evaluated (Koch 1959). The answer is yes, psychology is a science because its features agree with the key factures of science.
Science uses an empirical approach. Empiricism declaim only through human senses (sight, hearing or taste) people can gain knowledge (Locke, 1689). This foundation is opposite to rationalism view of Baruch Spinoza, that knowledge is being gained by based argument and logic (Markie 2004). Therefore, empiricism is the view that all knowledge is based on, or may come from experience. The way of gaining knowledge by the experience has become a method of inquiry that used observation and testing hypothesis to gather data and evidences. Psychology in its scientific way was officially born by opening the first psychological laboratory by Wilhelm Wundt in 1879. He also created the first department of psychology at the university and established the first psychological journal. Its feature was employing the methods of science (hypothesis statement and testing it by systematic observation and developing thesis) to understanding human way of thinking (Henrique 2016).
An example of this Isaac Newton and his Laws of Motion. Based on results of previous reserchers (Galileo, Aristotele) and what he observes with his own eyes he invented laws about motion and behaviour of the objects (Lucas 2017). They have became fundamental for other laws about the world so also the fundament of physics (Linehan 1936). Nowadays, the scientific process is based on model of Karl Popper (Popper 1935). This hypothetico – deductive model first concerns the laws about the world ( like Newton’s Laws) and then builds hypothesis, which need to be testified by observation. A great known example of this is Darwin, who had been curious to understand how living things–humans included–got to be the way they are. First, he created a hypothesis about human’s evolution claiming that apes are very human alike and could be our ancestry. Then was observing apes in their environment in order to prove or disprove his speculations. In their daily life he noticed human’s features like: jealousy, self awareness, sexuality or using tools. After proving his hypothesis it became Darwinism, a theory of human biological evolution development (Aarssen 2010). Psychology is questionable for many because of its lacks of precision in collecting data or differences between the same research conducted on different people in different time. However, other sciences are also not flawless and suffer from a lack of accurate definitions. For example, in here are several concepts in chemistry – aromaticity, hydrophobic effects, polarizability, chemical diversity- which succumb to multiple definitions and are not strictly quantifiable. Natheless, it does not make anybody wondering if chemistry is a science. Ganter and Wille (1997) claimed that if there is just a theory and no evidences supporting, it is only an idle speculation. On the other hand, if there is only data and no theory to explain it, it is just a trivia. It leads to conclusion that to gain scientific knowledge both, theory and data, are essentially needed, and psychology meets those conditions.
Psychology happens to be compared to fields like astronomy or religion. That is because psychology as well as religion can explain how the world works. People can choose to in science, religion or both of them. Nonetheless, they should not be compered because they are completely different (Guirdham 2014). They all eventually come to conclusions about human nature but they use different ways. However, religion gains the knowledge from a pope, preacher or manuscripts. Psychologists and other scientists use methods of systematic observation and developing thesis. Religions leads believers to salvation by explaining how people should and should not behave. While psychologist explain what people are like, their behaviour, and promote mental health (Hood 2009)
On the other hand, people are still concerned if that is actually the science (Henrique, 2016). Experiments need to establish that Y is caused by X, but this method ignores individual variables, that in a different time or at a different place that could be no influence of X. So many variables have an impact on human behaviour, what makes impossible to control them adequately and to study human mind thoroughly (McLeod, S. A. 2008) . The humanistic approach to psychology review a whole unique person and considers each as an individual. It rejects a scientific way of controlling because its dehumanizing and being unable to capture the richness of conscious experience (Miller 1969). Moreover, there is a common statement that results of psychology experiments too often support the thesis rather than contradict it. There was a research on differences between testing a hypotheses in branches of sciences. The results showed that in Psychology a positive result for the hypothesis is around 3 times more often than in Space Science. Psychologist publish only positive findings, what suggests us that they are more willing to support their own thesis than to find out the truth. Therefore, some of famous psychologist, like Milgram, buried data not supporting their thoughts and made some of experiments secrets (Fenelli 2010). That makes psychology scientific character arguable. Another reason is that sometimes in psychology it is not possible to measure things with a great precision like a science demands. For example chemists or physics can precisely determine what happens to the examined object or how the substance reacts. While studying human mind there are ways like brain scanning or observing reactions but still not everything can be studied those ways. To measure depression, the only option to collect data is to conduct psychological tests that ask people questions about how they feel. Accuracy of this measurement is poor because people can be self-deceived or just lie to hide their illness (Feldman 2017). Nowadays, psychology has became a frequent theme in pop culture. In teenage or woman’s magazines are fun quizzes with just empty pseudo-scientific theories not supported with any research or evidence. Also internet is full of interesting articles with no scientific background. That does make psychology look like a spoof instead of the science. There are also TV programs with involvement od so called psychologist with no real degree. They give participants ridiculous advice and tell pseudo- theories (Clyman 2011). Because of that popularity trustworthiness of psychology is being challenged.
To conclude, psychology is sometimes concerned as a non-scientific field because of its differences in compare to other sciences. Also many unofficial sources like tabloids or websites showing ‘psychology theories’, which are not supported by any research derail the public opinion of psychology. Nevertheless, psychology is a science what can be based on the all research from scientific (psychology) journals. Psychologists conduct research by using standardized ways of making observations, gathering data, forming theories, testing predictions, and interpreting results. Thanks to applications of scientific methods psychologists drew some key insights into human behaviour or animal cognition and consciousness (Henriques 2016)
Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1997). Applied lattice theory: Formal concept analysis. In In General Lattice Theory, G. Grätzer editor, Birkhäuser.
Hood, Ralph W., Jr.,et al. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. 4th ed. New York: Guilford, 2009.