Introduction
Psychology has contributed so much to the understanding of human behavior. Being defined as “ a discipline which seeks to study the thoughts and actions of man in a scientific way…” (Ackerman, n.d.), this field of study has been used extensively in trying to explain and describe several behaviors that greatly affect man’s everyday activities and social interactions. The discipline has been relevant in the education field, especially when it comes to developing effective teaching techniques.
Such techniques may be based on a learning theory or on a result of a specific test used to assess learning in students. Psychology has also been useful in the army—there are psychologists who are part of the troops.
These psychologists help in determining the possible attitudes of some soldiers towards a specific task, or whether or not some of their members are capable of completing it. Psychologists also help industrial organizations in determining what persuasion techniques might work most efficiently with a specific target market (Miller, 1962). To this extent, we can assume that psychology has been very useful, as its relevance in society ranges from personal to social and industrial to legal. One of the most popular uses of psychology is in marital counsel, which involves one of the most important institutions in society—the family. Recent psychological careers nowadays also involve giving “good death”, which was formerly the job of nurses and doctors only (American Psychological Association (APA), 2005).
Main body
However, psychology is still in its youth. It is still being criticized and some sectors in the academe doubt if it should really be considered as a science. Such criticisms are rooted in comparing the definition of psychology with the definition of science. The following points were raised by some authors based on their definition of science.
One criticism based on a definition is Kaplan’s (1964). Kaplan (1964) defined scientific observation as a “deliberate search, carried out with care and forethought, as contrasted with the casual and largely passive perceptions of everyday life….”. Coming from that vantage point, Kaplan (1964) stated that, in order for an observation to be considered scientific, it is necessary that there is contact control. According to him, several areas in psychology are problematic, or “questionable” as science (Kaplan, 1964).
Let us take, for example, unobtrusive measures of systematic observation. We cannot assure that the observer has contact control because: first, there is no assurance that the phenomenon being observed may happen again, or the individual being observed be available for observation again. The second is because a rare phenomenon that was observed only once or twice cannot be fully understood scientifically since the system of data gathering may change as the phenomenon changes its course.
These are problems of falsifiability: a characteristic of science that states that theories can only be falsified. How can you falsify something that has only been witnessed by one person? And in rare occurrence? Falsifiability depends on the replicability of the observation done. It follows that if something cannot be repeated for evaluation, it cannot be falsified, therefore it is not scientific. Such characteristics of some observation techniques in psychology were further discussed by Lutus (2003).
According to Lutus (2003), the aim of science is to come up with reasonable explanations or theories that will be used to describe reality, and such theories must be based on evidence. By evidence, he meant, information that was gathered and evaluated according to strict rules, and that was meant to assure that the explanations were scientific and reflect reality best (Lutus, 2003). With that we can simplify Lutus’ point as something like: in order for an explanation to be scientific, it must be based on testable evidence from which conclusions should be derived (and not from direct observations).
This criticism further pointed out some psychological techniques and materials such as “retrospection”, “informed consent” and “subjectivity” [of interpretations] among others which may be scientifically problematic because of the possible explanations that may be drawn from not testable evidence. Lutus (2006) even explicitly stated that “clinical psychology is not a science”.
Another type of criticism was made by Kendler (1981), which is based on the structure of psychology itself as a branch of science. “Psychology is an ambiguous science”, according to Kendler (1981), and he explained this judgment by pointing out the flaws of the field. First, are contrasting views on what really should be studied (mind or behavior?). There have been many approaches to the different concepts in psychology and this ranges from physiological (neuropsychology) to behavioral up to the purely confessional (psychoanalytic), and such differences in approaches contribute to the ambiguity of the science of psychology itself (if it is considered a science).
Methodological considerations may also be questioned because there are “no universally accepted guidelines… that specify the proper procedures in pursuit of the truth” (Kendler, 1981). In other words, it is purely the decision of the practitioner: what methods to make, the sampling procedure, the statistical tests to be used, etc. Because of such reliance on the psychological methods to be used on the preference of the psychologist, theories that were to be considered also reflect the prevailing approach from where the psychologist is coming from (Kendler, 1981)—and this may be questioned as some form of bias.
This, as we all know is not permitted in science. In every scientific endeavor we partake in, we must be very objective, or at least as much as we can. But in psychology, this could be the main problem, because the very structure of the field permits bias, even without the practitioner knowing it.
If we don’t consider psychology as a science, then in what sector of the academe should it belong? The following arguments in defense of psychology state that although there are some flaws in the methods and structure, it is still not worthy for psychology to be erased from the list of sciences.
If we define science in a different way, then our definition of psychology will be compared differently and the comparison may actually confirm it’s being scientific. According to Mazur (2006), “Science is an enterprise concerned with gaining information about causality, or the relationship between cause and effect”. In this case, we should consider experimental psychology as a science, since we know that in trying to exclude all the extraneous variables, we can most likely point out that one variable causes the other or vice versa. Another definition of science, which is by Santrock (2003) goes “Science is not defined by what it investigates, but how it investigates…”.
If we are to examine the definition, it is basically saying that investigation should be systematic, and psychological investigations are indeed systematic: from the hypothesis formulation to the hypothesis testing. Yes, the choice of method may vary from one practitioner to another, indeed, but it is not safe to assume that the methods are not scientific because every method in the psychological investigation is systematic.
Nowadays, there is a wide acceptance of psychology as a science, in spite of the numerous criticisms against the claim. To say that something is a science, supporting accomplishments should be given (Miller, 1962). According to Miller (1962), the accomplishments of science affect individuals in two ways. First is its role in technological advances, and solutions to daily life problems, and second, is the changes it may bring in terms of understanding reality (Miller, 1962).
Psychology had indeed affected us in the ways described. Advances in technology occurred through the necessity to probe the brain so as to understand how it works as we do our cognitive tasks (cognitive neuropsychology). The goal of cognitive psychology is to investigate the mental information processes that individuals use when engaging in cognitive tasks. This requires advanced equipment to probe the brain.
Conclusion
Psychology affects us in another way by bringing some change in our perception of the world. It is sure that once we learn that classical conditioning may cause permanent harm, we will be more careful in practicing it with our children. In the same way that once we learn that substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) may lead to serious psychological disorders, we will start to think about drinking moderately.
References
Ackerman, P. D. (no date). Psychology as a science. www.creationism.org. Web.
American Psychological Association (APA) Online (2005). Psychology Matters: The role of psychology in end-of-life decisions and quality of care. Web.
Kaplan A.(1964). The conduct of inquiry Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Kendler, H. (1981). Science in conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lutus, P. (2003). Is Psychology a science? Frontpage—www.arachnoid.com: A playground for thinkers. Web.
Lutus, P. (2006). A society of victims? Frontpage—www.arachnoid.com: A playground for thinkers. Web.
Miller, G. A. (1962). The Science of Mental Life. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row.
Mazur, J. E. (2006). Learning and Behavior. Connecticut: Prentice Hall.
Santrock, J. W. (2003). Psychology. Dallas: McGraw-Hill.