Contribution of Poppers Demarcation Criterion to Psychology Discipline - Essay Example

Psychology as a scientific discipline has been subjected to the belief that it is not a true scientific discipline because of the subject matter that it explores. At one time, some may have considered the theories of psychologists closer to a pseudoscience than a true scientific field, and looking back, some of the theories under the heading of psychology are considered pseudoscience, such as parapsychology or phrenology. It is considered to be a soft science. According to the definition, soft science is “any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria” (“soft science”, n.d., para. 1). This is in comparison to hard science, which is more easily measured and tested because it does not rely on human behavior and human concepts. One of the hardest parts of science is determining what falls under the heading of true science and what does not fit. Karl Popper has his own demarcation criterion that has been used to determine whether or not a particular subject is science or is a pseudoscience. Demarcation criterion by Karl Popper is governed by the falsifiable of the theory rather than a theory be verifiable. According to Bem and Jong (2005), “The philosophy of science has for a long time been characterized by the quest for a so-called demarcation criterion to distinguish science from pseudo-science and to be used as a yardstick against which to measure progress” (p. 56-57). Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion struggled with trying to determine which scientific fields are true science, and there were several important psychological figures that were deemed to be pseudoscience by the criterion posed by Popper. This includes both Freud and Alder who have both been seen as pioneers in the field of psychology for their work. Based on this, it may seem that Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion does not have any contributions towards the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline as his criterion actually disputes some of the major psychological theories as being true scientific theories. According to Hergenhahn (2008): In Popper’s view, all scientific theories will eventually be found to be false and will be replaced by more adequate theories; it is always just a matter of time. For this reason, the highest status that a scientific theory can attain, according to Popper, is not yet disconfirmed. (p. 10) This statement gives the basis for the contribution that Karl Popper has made towards the maintenance of psychology in that it offers up the idea of continuing to find better theories rather than psychological theorists to rest on their laurels. For instance, at one time, dissociative identity disorder where a person has separate, split personalities was considered by some to be controversial or a bad diagnosing, but more recent theorists have found this to be an actual disorder that impacts the lives of people today. The changes in theory regarding this disorder can be seen from the variety of names and other diagnosis, such as schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. The causes, diagnosis and proper treatment of this disorder are not well-established, but researchers continue to strive for an answer that helps to understand this disorder. Karl Popper’s view is one that believes that scientific discoveries at one time may fit what is currently known, but as additional discoveries are made, scientific theories are either verified again by new research, debated to see how the new information impacts an established theory, changed to fit with the new information, or a new theory is posited that can replace the previous theory. Another way that this can be seen as a contribution towards the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline is that Karl Popper’s belief was that scientific progress is moved along more by incorrect theories than theories that are correct. According to Thornton (2013), Popper has always drawn a clear distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology. … Methodologically, however, the situation is much more complex: no observation is free from the possibility of error—consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it appeared to be” (para. 14). In order to determine whether or not a theory is correct or incorrect, more testing must occur regarding the subject. Psychology is a field where tests must be composed in a certain fashion because it is dealing with humans rather than inanimate objects and is trying to determine information that may be unpredictable without prior observations. There can be a generality when it comes to how people will react to a particular situation, but with the differences in the people that are used for a study, there may be different results reported. Making sure that testing and observations during the testing follows a set methodology can help to ensure that the data stays pure and is not corrupted by sloppy testing procedures. There are several problems with Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion when it comes to the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline. The first is that under this theory, many of the psychology theories that are still held today, such as Freud’s teachings, would be considered unscientific. Karl Popper was seeking to understand the differences between what he saw as hard science and those that can be deemed soft science. According to Hark (2003), “What was wrong with Marxism, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology? he asked himself. Why were they so different from psychical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?” (p. 10). He considered that psychology was a field where a general explanation postulated by a theory could be used to explain a specific situation in human nature, and it troubled him that psychology could be used in this manner. He felt that these psychological theories were too vague to really be considered scientific theories unlike harder science theories where the testing is more absolute. For instance, a pseudoscience is fortune telling where a fortune teller used cards or a crystal to give their client a glimpse into the future by giving out statements that could be construed true for most individuals in one way or another. Karl Popper believed that this was the problem with some psychological theories. There really is not a formula that can be created that will help to understand the behaviour or thoughts that every single person will have as each person may react in a different fashion to a scenario that has been presented to them in real life or under a psychological test. Trying to classify both hard and soft science in the same manner does both a great injustice. Hard sciences allow for set observations in that something that is composed of silver will act the same as another lump of silver, and any experiment that is done on it will allow for the same conclusions to be drawn. The same experiment should get the same results every single time. The problem comes to the soft sciences as the same experiment done at a different time in a person’s life or with different people may get different results. Another problem with Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion when it comes to the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline is that it can be considered too narrow a focus where it may call true scientific theories into question as actual science, and too wide a stance that it allows for pseudoscience to be considered actual science (Keuth, 2004, p. 42). It would be hard to take this particular criterion serious as helping to maintain a scientific field when it takes out of the equation actual scientific discoveries because they have more to do with probabilities or existential questions in science. A great deal of the field of psychology focuses on trying to get at the heart of human kind, which can cause a lot of confusion as people are not the same. Trying to classify both hard and soft science in the same manner does both a great injustice, and this is really what Karl Popper’s theory does in trying to use the same criterion when they are dissimilar in the way that they are studied. It is hard to believe in the soundness of a theory that allows for already identified as scientific statements to be excluded as scientific and allow for already identified pseudoscience to be considered scientific as that would prove the theory to be incorrect. Based on this logic, it would be hard to maintain that this theory is able to help the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline. In conclusion, scientific philosophers have tried to find a way to determine which scientific fields can be considered actual science and which are pseudoscience. Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion focuses on the falsifiable of the theory to determine whether or not it is an actual scientific theory rather than one that should be considered pseudoscience. Under this criterion, there are some psychological theories that were considered by Popper to be more pseudoscience than actual science. This included Alder and Freud’s theories of psychology, most based on the fact that they do not hold empirical data that can be used for each and every individual, but are seen as being vague or overly general when describing human behavior and other concepts, almost like a tarot reader giving a predication that could fit any person if twisted enough to fit their situation. Although Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion did call into question whether or not psychology is a true science, there are some contributions that it made towards the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline. It requires that psychologists continue striving towards finding the correct theory and that the methodologies that are used in psychology should be as precise as possible when dealing with a less than precise field. There are also some issues when it comes to whether Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion can be used to help the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline. One is that this criterion calls into question whether some of the founding theories of psychology are true science. Another is that since his theory calls into question theories that are considered scientific and allows for pseudoscience to be considered scientific, is the question of whether or not this can be used to help determine the scientific nature of psychology. Karl Popper’s Demarcation Criterion can be used in a positive fashion towards the maintenance of psychology as a scientific discipline, but there are certainly problems that speak towards this theory’s viability. References Bem, S., & Jong, H. (2005). Theoretical issues in psychology an introduction (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Hark, M. T. (2003). Popper, Otto Selz, and the rise of evolutionary epistemology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hergenhahn, B. R. (2008). An introduction to the history of psychology (6th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Keuth, H. (2004). The philosophy of Karl Popper. New York: Cambridge University Press. soft science. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soft science Thornton, Stephen, "Karl Popper", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = . Read More