Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
While pretty much all psychologists consider their discipline a science, the general US adult population is less certain. (78% view as a science, with 43% viewing as more of a theory; as cited by Prinstein, M., “Is Psychology a Science,” 9/30/2022.) This has many reasons and sources: partly because the very nature of science is not generally well understood (science does not equal truth, nor does it claim to be); partly because psychology describes a multitude of evolving factors that we often cannot or should not quantify (so more like meteorology than chemistry in this respect); and partly because psychologists themselves have struggled with self-discipline.
Let’s see what’s going on here.
What is science?
Scientists have done so much, so fast, that it’s no wonder people see what they’ve accomplished as truth. From the awe-inspiring, like gene editing or safely landing an autonomous vehicle on Mars, to the terrifying, like atomic bombs. Also the daily influential, like phones and trains and inexpensive clothing and safe drinking water. What actually is it that has made all this possible?
Here’s a good definition of science from UC Berkeley’s website: “Our knowledge of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built.” In other words, a working model of how things are. The distinction between truth and a model of truth may sound small. At times it is – I don’t need to question whether the lunch I made is really rice and vegetables (remember The Matrix?) to get the nutritional and taste value. But I don’t actually know. I’m making assumptions based on models: sensory models, memory models of making it, knowledge about the store where I bought the ingredients, etc. Science works not because it has found truths, but because through its models we have navigated life with amazing success. And when they don’t – this is key – science provides a framework for making better models.
What is Psychology?
Now that we know what science is, we can turn to a harder question. So hard, in fact, that that consensus of what science psychology is breaks down among psychologists. Some would say it is the study of behavior. Others would say the study of mental experience. Still others would say brain processes. And still others would argue cognitive systems, which aren’t necessarily confined to one mind but spread across communities.
Here is some of the housekeeping confusion that creates some of the disconnect. A social psychologist, organizational psychologist, psychoanalyst, and behaviorist study very different things, even though they are all psychologists. Within psychology, we share the shame of knowing we cannot agree on our basic principles. And every generation, there is a new grand theory that feels new but generally rehashes the same ideas with a new perspective. Leading to the next internal division.
But, guess what all this means?
Psychology is like Meteorology
All these theories may be somewhat redundant. But this process of divisions and perspectives is a scientific process, of modeling. With each model, we test out humanity in a different way and gain more knowledge to further refine, expand, and integrate our models.
In chemistry, there isn’t much of a levels issue. You take a fuel, in an environment with oxygen, and add heat to spark a chemical reaction, and you’ve got a fire. Straightforward: mixing ingredients creates another ingredient. Weather, however, starts to get more complicated. We experience windy weather almost every day; but the experience of a hurricane is very different. Many factors interact in synergistic (and destructive) ways. Now add many additional levels and you get psychology. You can’t describe what happens in a specific synapse with just genetics, and you can’t describe a motor pathway with a bunch of synapses. You can’t describe a leg movement with motor pathways, the experience of akathisia (persistent restlessness) with leg movements, or existential despair about one’s body with akathisia. And the existential despair in turn is in context with one’s identity, family, and culture.
Perhaps psychologists have bit off a bit more than they can chew?
Next time, we’ll look towards a vision for psychology as a science.