So nearly 10 years ago, during my first year at University, I was given an essay assignment about whether I thought Psychology was a science or not. I remember leaving it to the last minute, but I enjoyed and thrived on the stress, and a lot of ideas filled the page. I received an A- for my essay, which I was happy about. I am posting this essay now. To be honest, I have edited some errors, and have made improvement where I have seen fit. I hope you think the essay is worth the share. Enjoy…
Some may assume that psychology is a science based on the principle that the use of the scientific method, used within research, reinforces objectivity and empirical understanding of behaviour. To some degree this is true; when looking in areas such as neuropsychology it would be hard to argue why the scientific method should not be used, thus supporting the argument that psychology should be a science. Therefore, when examining the physiological causes of behaviour especially, the expectation would be that the scientific method is used within research. In contrast, when examining behaviour in a holistic way, in areas such as psychodynamic psychology, it would be impractical to objectively examine behaviour; behaviour is almost always changeable and varies from individual to individual. Thus, we should alternatively be asking whether psychology should be a science, instead of asking whether it is a science, as psychology cannot always be scientific.
The answer to the question, as to if psychology is a science or not, is that it is both; psychology is both scientific and non-scientific – both objective and subjective. While many try to refute one argument against the other, many do not comprehend that both sides of the argument do not necessarily have to be independent from the other. Although research can lean toward being either scientific, or non-scientific, some researchers do examine and incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data regarding their findings. According to Cornelius (1996), those that work within the field of any science take their experiences as well as the scientific method to examine whether others experience the world in a similar way. This thus reinforces the notion that psychology can rely on both objective and subjective interpretations of behaviour. Therefore, instead of favouring one method with regards to the other, perhaps researchers should focus on trying to see the benefits of using both objective and subjective methods when examining behaviour where possible.
However, it is arguable that psychology would not have the validity it does today without it being deemed to some extent scientific. Thus, some may argue that psychology should be seen as a science, based on the high social standing that the term ‘science’ seems to hold in the field of scientific research. According to Dr. A. B. Berezow, psychology cannot be a science because it does not conform to the applications that make ‘hard’ sciences scientific; Berezow argues that psychology lacks quantifiably, which he implies is a key factor in determining what is scientific. Thus, based on Berezow argument, it is clear to assume why it is important that psychology should be perceived as a science; with much criticism, psychology seems to be undermined by those professionally working in the ‘hard’ science fields of research.
In contrast, to label psychology as a science based on the social stigma attached to anything less than scientific should be, to a certain degree, unacceptable. Why should psychology have to conform to what others see as ‘true’ science? In reference to Zoltain Dienes’ notes on philosopher, Karl Popper (pg. 7), it is implied that science is no more scientific than pseudoscience; man created science, therefore, why should the stereotypical definition of science be so ritually accepted as the only way science should be? Additionally, V. Bell argues that psychology is just a field of study where people either study it in a scientific or a non-scientific manner; thus suggesting that psychology is not a science, but that does not mean that psychology cannot be viewed in a scientific way. Thus, psychology should not be categorized as a science, but nor should it be ignored as being non-scientific. Psychology is an individual area of study, where people should be able to decide to study it in either an objective or subjective fashion based on their area of research.
Furthermore, psychology should not have to be validated in relation to whether it is regarded as scientific or non-scientific. Professor S.O. Lilienfield argues that psychology should be validated on the notion of whether psychological research has held any significance in helping individuals in society; Lilienfield clearly defends that controlled studies in areas such as psychotherapies have shown to be successful in helping individuals with destructive behaviours and mental afflictions. Thus, clearly the debate on whether psychology is or is not a science should not have to come into question when validating whether psychology is a valid subject area; psychology has opened up many paths to facilitating the understanding of human behaviour, and how to help and inform others of how behaviours, in relation to the human mind, work.
However, Lilienfield also states that many critics with regards to the area of psychology have been influenced by those that have abused their positions when conducting research; such as publishing false research findings. Therefore, Lilienfield argues that such examples of misconduct, within the field of psychology, have undermined the validity of the successful implications stemming from valid research, which have been introduced to develop true understanding of behaviour. This thus leaves further possibility for further research development within psychology at a disadvantage, as it is perceived by most critics as void. Thus, it is important to highlight that research in different areas of psychology, although may appear to follow either objective and/or subjective ways of data collecting, may not always be valid; thus the criticism being that some research in psychology is not scientific.
In summary, psychology is neither scientific nor non-scientific. Psychology is an individual subject area, where research can either conform or not conform to the values held within the ‘hard’ sciences of today. Thus, it is clear that psychology should not be considered entirely scientific; psychology goes beyond the standard definition of science, by trying to explain the unexplainable – trying to test the untestable. Therefore, psychology is more than just another failed attempt at science; it is science that can only be defined as having the capacity to explore and comprehend the indefinite realm of the human mind and human behaviour. Though, what is important is that research in psychology should always be true and valid; false findings should be taken as a negative, and only when researchers are honest and true can the barriers in research within psychology be lifted.
References
Bell, V. (2013). Don’t panic but psychology isn’t always a science. Mind Hacks [web log]. Retrieved Oct, 2013, from http://mindhacks.com/2013/08/20/dont-panic-but-psychology-isnt-always-a-science/
Berezow, A.B. (2013). Why psychology isn’t science. Los Angeles Times [web log]. Retrieved Oct, 2013, from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion: Research and tradition in the psychology of emotions. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding Psychology as a Science. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillian
Lilienfield, S.O. (2012). Is psychology a science? The Conversation [web log]. Retrieved Oct, 2013, from http://theconversation.com/is-psychology-a-science-10126
Random Essays For Fun 