Why Psychologists Consider Psychology to Be a Science?

Why Psychologists Consider Psychology to be a Science

        There are many different areas of psychology. Among them, widely known parts are clinical psychology and counseling psychology. The definition of psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience, as well as thought processes, which are all researched scientifically. Science, when defined properly, should satisfy the following areas of observability, repeatability, and refutability. The study needs to show its results numerically and it needs to be proven by many researchers repeatedly, and it needs to be a theory which can be refuted (Stanovich). To better understand why psychology is considered a scientific field, it is important to define critical components of the empirical approach and the differences between the empirical approach and non-empirical approach, the errors of pseudoscience in relation to the field of psychology, and the restrictions both scientific and nonscientific approaches place on understanding human behavior.

        From a scientific perspective, a psychologist needs to collect information that is both public and capable of being reproduced. The problem for the empirical scientist is how to achieve research without permitting his or her biases to affect the outcome (Hood). The word empirical means the data is obtained by experience, observation, or experiment, and is not reliant on argument or belief. Empirical approaches are based on experience, while non-empirical approaches are based solely on theories or models. The former relies on facts, experience, and observed, the latter, however, has no proofs that the theory is really true. Non-empirical approaches are gathering knowledge and truths about the world using techniques that do not follow the scientific method (Kowalczyk). It is not systematic. Otherwise, empirical approaches claim to be scientific and include the use of apparent procedures which not only show how the results were attained, but also strong enough for other researchers to attempt to repeat them and also have “empirical relevance” to the world (Stanovich). “Empirical relevance” includes showing the statements, explanation, and so on. It should be objective and not biased and should not rely on hearsay that is not supported or proven by evidence.

        Pseudoscience is known as not having strict rules in regards to applying the scientific method, and it’s major problem is reproducibility. Some examples of pseudoscientific approaches to understanding human behavior are the following: the theory of biorhythms, blood types determine personality, and the book ‘Water knows the answers’ by Masaru Emoto. The theory of biorhythms has been around for more than 100 years, and there are many popular books and websites about it. They usually contain remarkable scientific ideas such as bioelectricity or sinusoidal wave. However, the problem with the theory of biorhythms is that there is no reason to think they exist (Hines, 1998). The second example, which says that personalities depend on blood types, is also a pseudoscience approach. It is easy to hear about the relation between the personalities and the blood types; such as, blood type A implies a gentle personality but they easily get tense or that blood type O insinuates you are a good person. However, it is not true that all people with blood type A are sensitive or all people with blood type O are good people. This theory is only a guess and not scientific. The book ‘Water Knows the Answers’ is the same. Masaru argued that human’s thought influence water. For example, when water is turned into ice at 20 degrees Celsius, the shape of ice crystal is turned into a beautiful shape if classic music or love languages are played and it turns into an unpleasant shape if heavy metal music or swear words are played (Emoto). But there is subjective interprettion in this theory, such as beautiful or unpleasant. Also, classical and heavy metal music, or love languages and swear words cannot be utilized as objective criteria. Because of these reasons, Emoto’s theory is also classified as a pseudoscience. For these toreasons and based off these examples, pseudoscientific approaches are hard to fit into an empirical model. Despite this, though, people still believe in pseudoscience. They may believe it because it goes along with their beliefs, or it sounds more interesting or more logical. Real science can be difficult to understand, pseudoscience on the other hand is easier to understand. It can attract others who were frustrated by real science or were unable to understand it.