This past week, I gave my students a handout that stated the following:
"In answering the following question, I would like you to state what YOU
believe the answer to be, not what you think I want to hear. Some people
(even psychologists) answer with a 'no', others answer with a 'yes'. Is
psychology a science? Please explain IN DETAIL why you answered the way
you did."
Although I do not have enough responses yet (they are still being handed
in) to give meaningful statistics, a majority of my students so far have
answered "yes" to the question, although some qualified their answer
with exceptions. Of particular interest to me were the responses of
those who answered "no." These latter students' ideas about the
non-scientific status of psychology seem to be tied closely to
misunderstandings about the nature of science. Here are the major
reasons these students gave for questioning or rejecting the scientific
status of psychology (I give in parentheses the opposing characteristic
of science mentioned by at least some students) [I give in brackets
relevant passages from students' responses uncorrected for spelling or
grammar]:
(1) human behavior is too complex and variable to be completely
predictable (science leads to perfect predictability)
["Psychology is imprecise. It can not predict with a 100% certainty the
tenents {tenets} of psychology.... It can not define a set of rules that
will absolutely predict behavior."]
(2) the mind cannot be observed (science studies physical objects that
can be observed)--some students, however, mentioned that psychology is
scientific when behavior/mental events can be tied to biological factors
["Psychologists can not make any observations of the mind. Even if
someone tries to explain what they are thinking, their explanation is
skewed by their biases, experiences and even by the fact that we can
never explain all the processes acting in our mind."]
(3) too much variability in theoretical views of psychologists at any
one time, and too much change in views over time (science gives us
absolute knowledge--knowledge that can be proved irrefutably and, thus,
never changes)
["Although, with other sciences the knowledge gained is more solid and
consistant and w/psychology it seems to be ever changing."
(4) an objection related (I think) to the previous one: psychology is
based on the subjective opinions of its practitioners (science is based
on objective knowledge)
["It's not a science though because a lot of it is just opinion. In
psychology, what's true in one person's eyes is false in someone elses.
You can have two totally different views on the same thing but no one
can proves the other [erson wrong."]
(5) psychology is a protoscience (a field of science has matured past a
certain point by accumulating a solid base of knowledge)--we might call
this the Jamesian objection
["At the present time, with the little we know about the workings of the
mind, I would have to say no. However, with all the scientific research
being developed there is only inevitability to state that psychology
will develope into a science...."
Another said that psychology is "kind of like a bunny slope compared to
an expert slope."]
I think that these objections are based on serious misunderstandings
about the nature of science--misunderstandings that probably originated
for them in popular presentations of science in the media, or perhaps in
poor presentations of scientific practice in some of their earlier
classes. Not one student has yet mentioned issues concerning free will
or the "special place" of humans in the universe. That is most
interesting to me. Perhaps those issues are embedded in #1 and #3; or
perhaps most of my students are not yet sophisticated enough to see
clearly possible contradictions between the ideas we have discussed and
their own views on free will and religion (I have talked about such
contradictions in class, but only briefly).
One student stated the following:
"Psychology like medicine has both a scientific or research side, and a
clinical side. When proper research methodologies are used, and
supported conclusions are made, then psychology can be a science. On the
clinical side where the goal is to "treat" patients successfully,
regardless of the mechanism of the treatment, like medicine psychology
becomes more "art-like."
So, some students seem to have an adequate understanding of science, but
may see a distinction (an accurate one, I think) between parts of
psychology based in scientific procedures and parts which are not.
I was hoping that this might stimulate more discussion on an issue that
is (or should be) central for all of us.
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
