Stcmpsy | The home of Psychology at St Cuthbert Mayne



1. The Status of Psychology as a Science

In module 3, we looked at some arguments for and against the use of the scientific method in research. Here, our emphasis is on science in general, not just the methodology (although some of the content you learned for that exam could likewise be used here).

This controversy focuses on the issue of psychology’s status as a science. There are two strands to this debate

1. Is psychology as a science?

2. Should psychology be a science?

While the first question looks at whether psychology, in its present form meets the criteria of a science subject, the second examines whether being classed as a science is something that psychology should strive for. As with any controversy, there are proponents for and against both of these arguments.

However, before we can assess the status of psychology as a science, we must first define what science is.

a) Define science

Science is: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. According to modern definitions, science has the following features (Eysenck and Keane 1990)

1. Controlled observations: in most sciences it is typical for experiments to involve observing the effects of some specific manipulation.

2. Objectivity: even if total objectivity is impossible, it is still important for data to be collected in a way as close as objective as possible

3. Testing theoretical predictions: scientific experiments are generally carried out to test the prediction of some theory.

4. Falsifiability: the notion that scientific theories can potentially be disproved by evidence.

5. Paradigm: there is a generally accepted theoretic orientation within a science

6. Replicability: the findings obtained by researchers need to be replicable or repeatable; it would be hard (or impossible) to base a science in inconsistent findings.

However, they also point out that the division between science and non-science is not as clear cut as used to be believed.

Can you think of an example of a particular aspect/s of psychology that you have studied which you could use to demonstrate these concepts?

b) Discuss the status of psychology as a science

Is psychology a science?

Before looking at the arguments for whether it is desirable for psychology to be a science, we shall first assess whether it actually is a science.

1a: Argument – At least some ‘levels’ of psychology are scientific

Other more established sciences are reductionist to a certain degree (physics, biology etc) and it is considered desirable because complex phenomena are best understood in terms of a simpler ‘level’ of explanation. Many aspects of psychology are reductionist, in that they aim to explain complex behaviour by breaking it own into more simple components.

Give two theories from psychologies that are reductionist in their explanation of complex human behaviour.

Reductionism is desirable because it allows us to create testable predictions which can then be carried out in controlled experiments for example _______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In module PY3, we looked at some arguments for and against the use of scientific methodology. What arguments for the use of the scientific method can you remember? Give some examples ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A consequence of this is that reductionist theories are falsifiable. Popper (1969) argues that the main defining point of science is that we do not seek to find data that confirms a theory, rather we seek to disprove a theory, and only tentatively accept a theory if we fail to disprove it. As a result, theories that are non-falsifiable are unscientific.

Can you think of any theories that are falsifiable? How are they falsifiable? ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can you think of any particular areas of psychology that are unfalsifiable? What does this suggest about the status of psychology as a science?

Evaluation:

• What are the issues with reductionism?

o Can you completely explain all human behaviour in terms of its simplest parts?

o How valid are reductionist explanations?

• What issues arise from using scientific methodology? ______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1b: Counterargument – Psychology lacks the objectivity and control needed to be truly scientific.

Some of the issues that arise about the use of scientific methodology above have implications for objectivity and control. Popper (1972) argued that it is impossible to observe something and remain completely objective. He argues that no-one ever observes without some idea of what they are looking for. Thus, scientific observation is always driven by hypotheses and theories, and what you observe depends in part on what you expect to see. Psychology has the unique position of being humans studying other humans. This can make objectivity difficult as Popper argues that we all see the world from our own viewpoint or biases. This can influence our observations. For example

______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

While objectivity can be an issue in all sciences, it is particularly relevant in psychology as what we are measuring is often human behaviour, which unlike atomic mass, or miles per hour can often not be measured completely objectively and often relies on the interpretation of the observer. For

example ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even experiments where we assume that the measuring is completely objective will have some element of subjectivity. For example in Skinner’s experiments on rats in the Skinner box, the number of lever presses by a rat in a given period of time is the key behavioural measure. The equipment is designed so that the lever presses are recorded automatically. What is the issue?

____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Another issue with the use of the scientific method is that the things under investigation (i.e. people) are not just passive, unresponsive and unreactive. Heather (1976) was very dismissive of laboratory experiments. He argued that they were very artificial, and all that can be learned from them was how strangers interact in an unusual situation.

External validity: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation:

• Does the issue of control and objectivity just apply in psychology? What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? (pg 69) _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2a: Argument - Psychology shares the goals of science

According to Allport (1947) science has three aims; prediction, understanding and control.

i. Prediction: scientists put forward theories. These theories can then be used to generate hypotheses which are predictions of what will happen in certain situations or circumstances. These predictions or hypotheses can then be tested which can either disprove or provide support to a theory.

ii. Understanding: the next step is using the results from predictions to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena being investigated. However, even if a theory provides a number of accurate predictions, it my still not give us a full understanding of what is happening.

iii. Control: after prediction and understanding have been achieved, it is sometimes possible to move on to control. This is where we can use the knowledge gained to actually alter some aspect of the world.

Can you think of some examples which demonstrate how psychology shares these goals?

On the other hand...

Are there any parts of psychology which do not create predictions? _________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are there any parts that might produce accurate predictions, but do not increase understanding? (Think of anything that we have done which is “predictive rather than explanatory”)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are there areas of psychology where even though we can predict and understand we still cannot control? _______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation:

• Considering that there are some parts of psychology which achieve the goals of science, and other which do not, can we accurately call the entire subject scientific?

• However, in the examples above where the goals have not been reached, will this always be the case? Do the researcher’s have the goals of science, but are unable to reach them at this point in time?

• Does just using the scientific method turn psychology into a science? Miller (1983) suggests that psychologists who attempt to be scientists are doing no more than “dressing up”. They take on the tools of science such as quantifiable measures and statistical analysis, but the essence of science has eluded them. He suggests psychology is a pseudoscience (an approach that claims to be scientific, but does not adhere to the key principles of the scientific process). However, this is more dangerous in psychology as psychologists claim their findings to be “fact”

2b: Counterargument - The goals of science may not be appropriate for psychology

While some braches of psychology, such as behaviourism firmly believe that psychology should be a science and tried hard to achieve this, other approaches put much less emphasis on this notion. Humanistic psychologists argue that psychology should not be a science; whereas social constructionists state that it cannot be a science. Likewise, some have argued that the use of the scientific method actually has detrimental effects in areas such as the treatment of mental illness.

Humanistic approaches: Psychology should not be a science

The humanistic psychologists were fairly strongly opposed to the traditional scientific approach to psychology. According to the humanist psychologist Maslow (1968) “The uniqueness of the individual does not fit into what we know of science”. In other words, science is an inadequate tool for completely understanding the human experience. If we really want to investigate and understand human behaviour, we must use more idiographic than nomothetic methods.

A good example of a non-scientific theory from the humanistic approach is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) (next page). This theory states that for an individual to reach the peak of human experience (to become “self actualised”) they must meet the demands of the lower levels of need (i.e. be safe, be loved, have self esteem etc). This theory is considered unscientific because it produces few, if any testable predictions, and it has limited scope for control. However, it does focus more on the understanding of human experience. It is this goal that humanists emphasise.

The humanists favoured the use of phenomenology in which individuals report their conscious experiences in as pure and undistorted way as possible. This approach was justified by Rogers (1959) as being more valuable than traditional scientific measures, as it gives the deepest insight into experiences. It could also be argued that the data would be much more valid than by using traditional scientific methods, and be more representative of real life. However, this would also raise issues of reliability. So in this method of investigation is unscientific, which the humanists would argue is the point, and something to be desired!

Treatment of psychological disorders: Psychology should not be a science

Another area in which the goals of science are considered inappropriate is with the treatment of psychological disorders. Laing (1965) argued that by using scientific explanations to explain and treat schizophrenia, important factors were missed out such as the distress and suffering experienced by the patient. He argued that each individual could only be treated by seeing them as an individual rather than a set of symptoms.

Evidence for this argument comes from the success rates of various treatments. For example, psychoactive drugs and ECT (which are both ‘scientific’ treatments) have had limited success, suggesting that the scientific method may not always be appropriate.

Social Constructionist approaches: Psychology cannot be a science

This is an approach to psychology which is based on the assumption that our knowledge of ourselves and of others are social constructions. Thus there is no objective reality for research.

In other sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry etc, there is an assumption that there is an objective reality, a truth which exists beyond human culture. The goal of these sciences therefore is to uncover this objective truth. Reality does not change, but our understanding of it does. For example, when early astronomers discovered that it was the earth that went around the sun and not the other way around, objective reality did not change. The earth had always goes around the sun, and the change in knowledge had no bearing upon the actual truth.

If social constructionism however is true, then in psychology there is no objective reality waiting to be discovered. All psychology is a product of the cultural and historical circumstances of the time. It would follow that it would be impossible for psychology to be a science.

Social constructionists argue that observations made by psychologists and the way in which they are interpreted are determined in large measure by the cultural and historical forces influencing them. For example, teachers beating disruptive school children are now regarded as behaving violently, whereas 40 or 50 years ago, their behaviour would have been seen as acceptable.

Can you think of any theories that it could be argued are social constructs? __________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Burr (1997) argues that since there is no ultimate knowledge of human beings that we call a final truth, what must be done instead is to understand where current ways of thinking have come from.

Could social constructionism explain everything in psychology? ___________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3: Argument – Scientific research is desirable

This argument states that psychology should strive to be scientific, as it is the only way to separate fact from opinion or ‘common sense’. As such, psychologists use empirical methods to provide support for theories. The aim of this was to give psychology credibility (for more information look back to your notes from PY3 (advantages of the scientific method) and pg 68 in the textbook on the History of Psychology).

4: Argument – Psychology has no paradigm

According to Kuhn (1962) the most essential ingredient in a science is what is called a paradigm. This is a theoretic orientation which is accepted by the great majority of workers in that field. A paradigm is a set of assumptions which can govern the subject. This includes what is to be observed and scrutinized, the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject, how these questions are to be structured, and how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

Kuhn (1970) argued that there are three distinct stages in the development of a science.

1. Pre-science: no paradigm exists, and there is much debate about what the subject is and its theoretical approach.

2. Normal Science: A generally accepted paradigm that can account for all the phenomena related to the subject, and can explain and interpret all findings.

3. Revolutionary science: evidence against the old paradigm reaches a certain point, and there is a paradigm shift. The old paradigm is replaced by a new one.

A good example of a paradigm shift was in physics. Copernicus showed that the earth revolved around the sun, which replaced the old paradigm of the sun revolving around the earth.

Where is psychology according to Kuhn? What evidence do you have?

-----------------------

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download