Psychology as a science

В статье приводятся аргументы за и против признания психологии наукой

Psychology is often defined as the "science of behavior and experience” (Cardwell and Flanagan 260). However the claim that psychology is a science can still be disputed. Some people claim that psychology does not "bear scientific fruit. Each field based in science has to be able to show results, both as public validation of its theories and methods and as a form of internal evidence” (Lutus) Psychology is based on empirical approach. It claims that our senses are the source of knowledge, as opposed to rationalism ("Is Psychology a Science?”).

In order to determine whether psychology is a science or not, it is necessary to define a ‘science’ itself. A science is ‘objectively obtaining data and organizing it into theories’ ("Is Psychology a Science”). Science usually follows some process when something scientific is investigated. When an investigator is studying something, he usually studies the subject’s idea. That is called inductive reasoning. Then, the subject matter is always generalized and then a hypothesis is stated. When the subject matter is studied, generalized and tested, deductive reasoning is usually used. It can be either falsified or verified. Science is supposed to be objective and deal with testable variables.  

Objectivity is of major importance. Psychology needs to be objective in order to be classified as a science. It means that no biased ideas are imposed by researchers. Any researcher should not make conclusions on what he believes, but on facts. Sometimes, this objectivity exists. This is true about biological, behaviorist and cognitive theorists. While investigating their theories they usually use laboratory studies. The reason to that is that their theories are usually controlled and thus, they are unbiased by the personal researchers’ beliefs. Still, psychodynamic theorists differ from them. They usually use case studies in the process of investigation of the subject matter. Thus the results are usually generalized and their interpretation is biased. The main idea of this argument is that the issue of whether a method is objective or not depends on psychological investigation that is carried out.

The second argument, as well as the first one, can also be used either for or against psychology as a science. It concerns the process of operational variables. Sometimes, they are already established, as in physics or chemistry – grams, voltage or amps. They are easily established.  But unfortunately psychologists cannot establish such variables when they investigate something. Thus, if they study someone who is sweating and they make a conclusion that it is a sign of stress, there are not enough justifications to prove that sweat is a direct variable of the stressful situation. So, it is difficult to judge whether psychology is a science, as causality is not established.

The third argument is causality. It presupposes cause and effect relations. There are sciences, in which these relations are observed very vividly. As a rule, these sciences ground their conclusions on the basis of laboratory experiments. They are usually controlled and thus demonstrate cause and effect relations.

Of course, to some extent, psychology also establishes causality sometimes. Laboratory experiments are used very often in cognitive, behavioral and biological approaches. The highly controlled conditions can establish a good ground for causality. But psychodynamic theorists usually use case studies in the process of investigation. So, some problems are raised when laboratory experiments are applied when it is necessary to investigate psychological phenomena. The problem is that laboratory experiments usually lack such important feature as ecological validity that is not applied to real life. Besides, experiments may demand various characteristics. The experimental validity may be also absent in this case, as sometimes a participant has no confidence in the experiment.

The fourth argument, which is also the final one, is the use of theory by psychology. All major sciences usually have various paradigms. These paradigms are general theories that usually embrace numerous small theories. Thus, physics, for example, has relativity theory. Unfortunately, psychology has nothing of this kind. Instead of this, psychology has several levels of explanations that can explain and characterize different phenomena. Probably, that is the reason why psychology is considered by some scientists not yet a science, but some theory approaching it. It means that psychology has all the potential to be called and recognized a science one day, but now it has not yet reached its limit. There is another problem of paradigms: the fact that they are changed very often makes us think that psychology as a science does not necessarily need paradigms. Having all those sufficient levels of explanation, it already seems to be sufficient enough without paradigms.

To sum it up, there are arguments both for and against psychology as a science. If to examine the definition of psychology given in the very beginning - ‘objectively obtaining data and organizing it into theories’ – it seems fair to admit, that psychology is a science with its own apparatus for investigating.