Philosophical Issues: Is Psychology a Science - Assignment Example

Psychology Is Science If you believe that psychology is science, then, brace yourself, because until now, many challenge this, refuting psychology is only a set of belief just like religion. But, what’s the big problem whether or not psychology is science? Is it not enough that it explains human behavior? Does it not matter humanity benefits from it? Is regarding psychology as science denigrating science? And if it’s not science, will it be harmful? If it’s not science, then, what is it? If it’s not science, is it worth the attention it gets? In modern society, psychology has played a delicately crucial role. It has been regarded as basis on some social and legal policies that may either make or break people’s lives. For example in judging criminal suspects, psychology is oftentimes used as basis in understanding criminal behavior leading to their freedom or incarceration. Such serious societal concerns should rely primarily on reason, on science (Lutus, 2009, sec. 1, par. 2). Also, to clearly identify which among the academic fields are sciences would help us better understand the universe more systematically, which in turn would better empower man to create further progress (Siepmann, 1999, p. 3). For this matter the nagging question whether psychology is really a science or simply a belief system should be established. To answer this ambiguity of psychology, it would be paramount to define terms, primarily science, as it would lay the framework as to how psychology should be understood. Defining Science Since the term ‘science’ was coined, it has been widely used especially among developed countries, which have primarily benefited from the so-called wonders of science. With these, scientific thinking has been considered a distinguished intellectual achievement of man as science is regarded a cognition of the highest order because science, to name some of its characteristics, “involves myriad cognitive and intellectual processes… abstract and symbolic thought; reasoning and logic; pattern recognition; planning; problem solving; creativity; hypothesis testing; mathematical, analytical, and spatial reasoning; intuitive hunches; chance associations; and… art of coherent… cogent verbal expression and persuasion...” (Feist, 2006, p. ix). As science aims to explain reality with reasonable explanations – theory based on evidence, it, in essence, clearly distinguished man from animals because animals do not have reasoning ability. It should be understood, however, that evidence in science requires strict standard – a properly conducted scientific investigation never base its conclusions directly from simple observations (Lutus, 2009, sec. 2). And scientific investigation is conducted following a scientific method, which is commonly equated with experimentation. However, although experimentation has always been a part of scientific method, it is insufficient to establish what is science, because not all realities could be explained through experimentation. Thus, the definition of science must be timeless and encompassing. To this, Siepmann (1999) proposed that science be defined as “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part” (p. 3). But to Kosambi: “Science is the cognition of necessity” (as cited in Monteiro, 2008, p. 103). Thus, “with all of reality becoming the subject of science, science itself ceases to be a subject, and instead becomes a method for understanding and engaging with reality” (Monteiro, 2008, p. 104). To Kosambi’s words: “There is no science without change… The real task is to change society…” (as cited in Monteiro, 2008, p. 105). However, as science tries to explain reality, what determines science from non-science is the opposite of truth – false, which Popper called the problem of demarcation (as cited in Dienes, 2009, p. 2). In this framework, he viewed “science as the process of proposing falsifiable theories then rigorously attempting to falsify them” (Ibid, p. 9). Although it appears that science has no single definition, the above definitions provide us a broad understanding of science as to its characteristics, its required ability, its appropriate method, its task, and its subject of interest. From these, psychology could be better judged whether it is science or not. Defining Psychology In its broader sense: “Psychology is the scientific study of the overt and covert behavior of living organisms – with emphasis on animals and especially humans” (The Science and Practice of Psychology, 2004, p. 3). Studies in psychology, which center on how the brain interrelates with the rest of the body, along with their origin, are systematically conducted, carefully satisfying the need to gather objective evidence that could be evaluated, as psychology demands proofs derived from controlled experiments and precise, objective observations (p. 4). Thus, psychology is primarily tasked “to understand behavior in all its forms and… to predict its course. Indeed, understanding and predicting are goals of all sciences” (Ibid). However, controlling human behavior to be studied raises ethical concerns, which to some sees it a reason not to consider psychology a science. Psychology covers a wide area of study and practice. Currently, it “has five or six major perspectives: biological-neuroscience, developmental, cognitive-perceptual, personality, social, and clinical-mental health” (Feist, 2006, p. 4), all of which utilize the scientific method. As it evolved trying to be a science, as the base of information continually changes, and as living organisms, specifically human beings become more sophisticated, psychology was able to develop different laboratory techniques. Psychology: Science or Not Psychology was able to reasonably group all behavioral data under one concept only termed behavior leading to the visualization of psychology as a laboratory science (Rychlak, 1968, p. 169). However, this is not enough to accept it as science. To this, Lutus (2009) enumerated several reasons why is it so: First is “ethical consideration” (sec. 3, sub-sec. 2). To subject human beings merely as object of scientific study would raise many questions. “Psychologists often have mixed feelings about whether control of behaviors should be considered a third primary goal of their science” (The Science and practice of Psychology, 2004, p. 5). And here lies the problem, because for psychology to be unquestionably considered science, it must study human behavior based on strictly controlled experiments. Second is the “blurring of research, diagnosis and therapy,” (Lutus, 2009, sec. 3, sub-sec. 3) still due to ethical limitations. Third are the “overall lax standards of psychology,” (Ibid, sub-sec. 4) wherein practices using psychology to advance one’s stake abound even at present. Fourth is the “facilitated communication” – a bogus field that suddenly existed claiming that specific disabled people can actually communicate with loved ones through a communicator. Yet, after proven staged, this remains widely practiced (Ibid, sub-sec. 5). And, fifth is the “recovered memory therapy,” which is another bogus practice (Ibid, sub-sec. 6). In sum, the above practices and limitations have shown that psychology can describe things without reliable explanation, which in science the latter is the essential. Despite the existence of varied psychological theories, these are not sufficient to regard psychology a science because science requires theories to be tested, which in the case of psychology is its basic limitation (Ibid). Conversely, “many psychologists have argued that, because psychological research is carried out and published, and because that research meets many of the criteria describing valid scientific research, it therefore follows that psychology is itself scientific” (Ibid, sec. 4, par. 1). This is especially true for “the branches of psychology that are strictly devoted to the understanding the human mind and behavior through rigorous experimentation” (Simon, 2009, par. 3), for example clinical psychology. But according to Moore (1921): “Every science is based on postulates, that is to say, upon certain fundamental and essential presuppositions without which the science in question would be impossible” (p. 159). Thus, he presented the following four postulates for psychology to be complete and independent science: First is “the existence of the material world”. Psychology becomes interested in the existence of the material world as an object of knowledge. Specifically, it inquires on how does man perceive the outside world. Second is the “existence of consciousness,” which is distinct to psychology. This is in fact the science of psychology. Third is the “interrelation of consciousness and the material world,” as there could be no consciousness without the truth of the material world. Here psychology sub-postulates that the study of consciousness can only be possible when connected with “some definite human organism” and that consciousness interrelates with the material world through the nervous system especially of the brain. And, fourth is the “uniformity of mental life,” which means that the mind works and relates constantly in uniform ways by which psychological laws can be formulated (pp. 159-162). The four postulates above prove one important point, that psychology’s object of study is in fact a matter of science because to understand the function of the brain and its relation to the body and to consciousness are complex objects of study necessitating scientific inquiry. Also, “… mind cannot observe and perceive without theory and expectation being an active part of the process” (Feist, 2006, p. 13). Thus, if science requires and in turn further develops to the highest-level man’s cognitive ability, and so does psychology. Conclusion From the above discussions, the following conclusions could be drawn: First, psychology is science in as much as its object and interest of study – brain, consciousness, and behavior –requires scientific inquiry to be truly studied. Second, psychology is science in the sense that it seeks to explain although a part is vital to the universe – living organisms. Third, psychology is science in the sense that the studies it has produced brought changes to society as to the improvement of human relations. Fourth, psychology is science in the sense that its studies are conducted following scientific method. As one psychologist explained: “The sophistication of our scientific methodology is unquestionable. However, the interpretation of results of our scientific investigations and the correct application of principles derived from them are often suspect” (Simon, 2009, par. 6). But following Popper’s principle of demarcation, the question – “does [psychological] research address and potentially falsify one or more core theories that define the field” (Lutus, 2009, sec. 5, par. 2) undermines psychology’s quest to be considered science. Thus, “psychology occupies a unique position as a discipline, addressing basic questions of meaning and value normally associated with the humanities but approaching the study of thought and behavior from the methodological perspective of the natural sciences” (Frierich, 1996, p. 6). With these, it would be more appropriate to regard psychology a meta-science, as it integrates other scientific fields and utilizes integrative scientific approaches in its studies. References Dienes, Zoltan. (2009). Understanding Psychology as a Science. England: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Feist, Gregory J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. US: Yale University Press. Frierich, James. (1996). Topical Articles: Assessing Students Perceptions of Psychology as a Science Validation of a Self-Report Measure. Teaching of Psychology, 23 (1): 6-13. Lutus, Paul. (2009). Is Psychology a Science? Retrieved from http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/. Monteiro, Vivek. (2006). D D Kosambi: The man and his work: Sicence is the cognition of necessity. Economic & Political Weekly. 26 July. Pp. 103-108. Moore, Jared Sparks. (1921). The Foundations of Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rychlak, Joseph F. (1968). A Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory. Boston: Hougton Mifflin. Siepmann, J.P. (1999), What is science? Journal of Theoretics (1) August/September: 3. Retrieved from http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm Simon, George. (2009). Psychology: Art or science? Counselling Resource. 23 July Retrieved from http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/07/23/psychology-art-or-science/ The Science and Practice of Psychology. (2004) In Psychology: An Introduction. UK: Thomson Learning. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/15731175/1-The-Science-and-Practice-of-Psychology Read More