Earlier today, I wrote about reasons my students gave for saying that
psychology is not a science.
> 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."
>
> 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.
As I reread that post, I see that not all their responses were based on
misunderstandings of science (I suppose that these had been most salient to
me at the time I wrote the post). Now, I see that some also accurately
focused on difficulties with the scientific study of mental events:
> (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."]
This objection is one I need to deal with more effectively in class.
Although I talked about grounding all unobservables in measurable
behaviors, this student (one of the best-performing students in my
intro-psych course) did not understand that, although it can be very
difficult, we can make valid inferences about what is going on in people's
minds.
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
