Is Psychology a hard Science?

Is Psychology a hard Science?

When we talk about whether Psychology is a science, we must ask some critical questions about the nature of the Psychology as a scientific discipline and whether it can be considered as solid a science as other more traditional scientific disciplines such as Chemistry and Physics. It also seems that distinctions need to be made between the various schools of Psychology, as methods and approaches vary a significant deal. In the essay I will look to determine what is the appropriate methodology for Psychology and other factors that affect our consideration of whether Psychology is a science.

The Idea of Psychology as a serious science has come under significant attack over the years since the breakaway of Psychology from other disciplines that have an interest in the workings of the mind such as Philosophy. The really clear breakaway seems to be marked by the publication of William James text The Principles of Psychology in 1890, which was certainly a fundamental moment in the History of Psychology. Though Wilhelm Wundt's psychological laboratory had been running for 11 years previous to the publication of James monumental text, James seems to lay the foundations for many questions that Psychologists would investigate for many years to come. In this for the time groundbreaking text, William James set out his four methods which played a role in his conception of Psychology, these were Analysis, Introspection, Experiment and comparison by statistical means. To me it seems that all four of James principles still remain in use in Psychology to some degree, though methods in which they are undertaken have changed quite significantly. For example we have seen a move away from hypnosis as a means of experiment which has been replaced by things such as experiments in the field of neuroscience, though hypnosis is still of interest in area's such as Psychiatry, though there area's of controversy around it's use. The role of introspection in Psychology has also decreased quite significantly with it being brushed aside as a suitable method by Behaviourists and those in Cognitive psychology due to its unreliability and lack of Objectivity.

It seems fitting to start our discussion to whether Psychology can be considered to be a science by taking a look at the criticism's that have been levelled against the concept of Psychology as a Science. A good deal of criticism of the idea of Psychology as a science has come from Philosophers of Science, who have attacked what they see as weak points in Psychology especially with regards epistemological concerns. The very influential and somewhat controversial Philosopher of Science Karl Popper set out his theory of falsification. In Popper's view a theory must be able to be falsified if it is to be considered a scientific theory. This leads us into his criticism of Psycho analysis which appeared in his 1963 work Conjectures and Refutations , especially in concern with theory's put forward by Freud where in a form which was not open to testing and therefore were not falsifiable and could not be considered science, for example patients reaction was not consistent with the theory an alternative explanation could be given such as the patient was responding with defence mechanisms or the such. Criticism can also be launched at Psycho analysis for an often lack of clear empirical validation, with a lot theory's being developed from clinical observations. Now days Freud's theory's have been largely marginalized by the Psychological community and Psycho analysis being of much less interest to many scientific orientated Psychology departments in favour of what is considered more precise and accurate methodology's toward Psychology.

Another attack on the conception of Psychology as science was made by Thomas Kuhn Philosopher of Science, who set out his conception of a scientific paradigm in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolution stating that science worked within a given conceptual frame work or set of beliefs which are shared by the entire community and in which new entrants trained into. Thomas Kuhn felt that Psychology as a discipline was in a pre-paradigm state lacking a conceptual frame work or set of beliefs that where shared by the whole community, in comparison with the more mature of Science's such a Chemistry and Physics. Though a lack of a conceptual framework which is shared by the whole community seems very unlikely in a discipline which has a vast array of ideas of how Psychological problems should be addressed. But this does suggest the Psychology lacks clarity to what it is as a scientific discipline.

The branch of Psychological Behaviourism which's research seemed to be grounded in quite a strong empirical manner which rejected introspective methodology restricting Psychology too experimental methods, was still not free from by criticism. B.F Skinner's radical behaviourism came under some very heavy fire in 1961 when linguist Noam Chomsky released reviews of both Verbal Behaviour and Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Chomsky's reviews affronted Skinners approach as severely lacking and that his experiments could not be used to show and understand human behaviour. In regards to Skinners Verbal Behaviour Chomsky cited the rapid language accumulation of children and there quick ability to form grammatical sentences which could not be accounted for by Skinner's research. Chomsky is credited with launching the cognitive revolution in American psychology. Chomsky's attack saw the end to Skinner's radical behaviourism and also raised questions about the validity in regards to the use of animals in research which draws conclusions about human behaviour. Modern day behaviourism is very much alive with the field being known as Behavioural analysis, though adaptations about the kind of conclusions which can be made about human behaviour have changed.

There also others concerns whether Psychology is a science. Such as whether first person experiences can be measured in a Objective way, such that conclusions about there nature can be drawn. We also see problems with the reliability of data gathered from self-reports .This kind of problem seems to be quite evident in the Psychological discipline, much more so than in other disciplines which are considered very solid Sciences such as Physics and Chemistry, where it is possible to measure the results of experiments in a far more objective way, this is raises some questions about whether Psychology can be considered Science in the same sense that other scientific fields as it seems to be able to draw much less Objective results.


Psychology as a whole can not be considered to be a hard Science there is no shared conceptual framework between the different disciplines in Psychology which has lead to an agreed fundamental method on which Psychology should go about carrying out its activity's.




An essay I wrote a while ago thought I would share :bigsmile: