Brink (1b): What makes psychology scientific?

What makes psychology scientific? 

Based on a text Links to an external site. by T. L. Brink. Licensed CC-BY-NC-SA.

Psychology is a science because it follows the empirical method. The scientific status of any endeavor is determined by its method of investigation, not what it studies, or when the research was done, and certainly not by who did the investigation. All sciences use the empirical method. Empiricism emphasizes objective and precise measurement. 

Psychology and the other behavioral or social sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, political science) are not as precise in their measurements as are biology, chemistry or physics, but to the extent that psychologists use empirical evidence, their findings may be referred to as scientific.

It is this emphasis on the empirically observable that made it necessary for psychology to change its definition from the study of the mind (because the mind itself could not be directly observed) to the science of behavior. We can directly observe and carefully measure externals such as what a person does, says, and marks down on a psychological test. We cannot directly observe a person's mind (e.g., internal thoughts, emotions).

Here is how to remember that a psychologist is a scientist who studies behavior using the empirical method. Notice that in the word psychologist the letter O is repeated twice. That does not happen in psychiatrist or psychoanalyst or even psychotherapist. Imagine that those letters are eyeballs opened wide, so that the psychologist can better observe behavior: e.g., what a rat does in a maze or how a patient behaves.

Pseudo-psychology is phony, non-scientific speculation about human behavior. Astrology (trying to predict a person's behavior or character on the basis of the position of planetary bodies) is generally regarded as a pseudo-science because of its origin in ancient Babylonian religion, not in the modern science of astronomy, which carefully measures and calculates the position of the planets. If someone were to gather enough data to prove that astrology could consistently and systematically predict behavior or character, then astrology would become a genuine science. However, until that evidence is presented, scientists, including psychologists, prefer to err on the side of skepticism.

Common sense, by itself, is not sufficient for science. Common sense refers to generally accepted ideas about human behavior, but many of these have not been subjected to the kind of systematic investigation that formal science demands. Common sense tends to limit its database to self-reflection (introspection) and over-emotionalized, isolated examples (case studies), some of which might even be contradictory. Common sense may be a starting point for some of our hypotheses about human nature, but we cannot stop there: we must go forward and systematically gather data to test those hypotheses. So it is best not to use the term common sense in this course.

Data are the bits of information that are observed by psychological research. Within the social sciences, the term data is regarded as plural. So, we should say these data are instead of this data is. Within other fields, such as information technology, data is regarded as singular (a base of information) and therefore, in that field, people say “this data is.”

A theory is an abstract concept which science uses to understand, explain, or control what it is studying. Theories are never to be seen as substitutes for a lack of facts. Theory works together with observed data to form scientific knowledge.

If we have only theory, but no data, we do not have scientific knowledge, but only idle speculation. If we have only data, but no theory to make sense of it, then we are left with meaningless trivia. Both theory and data are essential components of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always growing. Sometimes the growth is produced by new data (more facts to back up a theory) and sometimes the growth is occasioned by a new theory that does a better job in explaining more data.

Inference is the process of reasoning from something directly observed to something else not directly observed. This word comes from the verb to infer. Psychologists observe behavior and then make inferences about why the person (or animal) behaved in that way. Emotions, motives, and abilities are never directly observed, but only inferred. Here are some examples of inferences that psychologists or you yourself might make.

Science tries to explain the natural world with theories of cause and effect. Sometimes we observe an effect, and infer a likely cause.

Of course, if the cause was not essential to produce the effect, we could be mistaken, for there may be some other cause of the observed behavior. Perhaps the little girl was not able to use the swing because another child cut in front of her: she was not physically hurt, but her sadness was due to disappointment.

Sometimes we observe a cause, and infer a subsequent effect.

Of course, if the cause is not always adequate to produce the effect, these predictions can be mistaken. Predictions are much easier in a science like physics, where all hydrogen atoms react the same. In psychology, we must keep in mind that people do not merely react, but they respond. Between the cause (an environmental stimulus) and the effect (the response) is an organism (a person or an animal). The stimulus is always something external, a change in energy that the organism can perceive (e.g., a loud sound). The stimulus is not an internal drive (e.g., hunger). The organism is a person or animal who perceives the stimulus and then creates a response. The response is what the organism does (e.g., action, speech, scores on a test). The stimulus elicits a response; the organism emits a response.

Because no two people are exactly alike, there is only a limited ability to predict if a given stimulus will lead to a given response. Psychologists disagree about whether these differences are due to free will (different organisms make different choices on how to deal with the same situation) or whether different responses are determined by the different background factors (e.g., heredity, early childhood) influencing later responses to later stimuli.

So let us be cautious when we infer what will become of an abused child. Perhaps the mistreated little boy will become a serial killer, or perhaps he will develop a great empathy for other abused children, and become a police officer, nurse, or psychotherapist who tries to help others in the same situation.

This course in psychology will overlap in its topics and methods with other courses. The sciences of biology and sociology also use the empirical method and study human life, but their focus is different. Biology has a micro focus, and looks at human life as organ systems and metabolism. Sociology has a macro focus and looks at human life in terms of participation in larger units: groups and cultures. Think of psychology as the bridge between biology and sociology. The first few units of this book emphasize the physiological areas of psychology, and the last units will overlap with sociology.

The relationship between psychology and religion is often debated. Some (but not most) scientists are atheists who view religion as not much more than superstition or pseudo-science. Sigmund Freud (the psychoanalyst) and B.F. Skinner (the Behaviorist) thought that as science came to better understand human behavior, there would be less reliance upon religion.

On the other hand, some religious extremists may oppose science. Cult leaders may claim to be the only authority on everything and forbid their followers from consulting science. Some traditional religious fundamentalists take scripture (e.g., the Bible, Torah, Quran) literally, and contend that scripture contains all that we need to know about human nature, and therefore, we do not need a science of behavior.

On the relationship of religion and psychology, this book takes the middle position: there is no contradiction between the two because they employ different methodologies in coming to conclusions about human nature. Psychology and other sciences use the empirical method of observation. Religion gets its knowledge from revelation: scripture, a prophet, a pope, etc. Science tells us what people are like, while religion tells us what people should be like. Psychology searches for techniques to promote mental health, while religion seeks salvation. It is the contention of this book that one can be a devout Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Muslim or Buddhist and also be a good scientist. The religiously devout should not be concerned that psychology, or any other science, is going to conclude that God does not exist, or come up with another formula for saving one's soul.

Most psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists are not atheists, but have some religious affiliation. Indeed, many Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, and Jewish rabbis blend modern psychotherapeutic techniques with traditional spiritual counseling in what is known as pastoral care.