top of page

Is Psychology Really a Science?

Feb 18, 2021
3 min read

Updated: Feb 25, 2021

Psychology’s constantly evolving theories aren't a flaw but a reflection of humility and earnest scientific enquiry.


Psychology is very much a science, but one that values flexibility and change over rigidity and permanence.

In a 2012 L.A. Times article, microbiologist Alex Berezow argued that psychology was not a real science. Berezow claimed, “psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.” Like Berezow, many “hard scientists” such as chemists and physicists have dismissed psychology as a legitimate science because they believe much of the field’s research lacks empirical validity.


This poor view of psychology has shaped public opinion too, and I’ve heard many regular folks deriding psychology as fluff or wishy-washy – a subject full of “possiblys” and “perhaps”. These criticisms were the main reason why I put off studying psychology – a subject I’ve been interested since I was twelve – until recently. Now, as I’m working towards getting my Masters of Science in Psychology degree from the University of Leicester, I’m beginning to see that the criticisms are unfounded. Psychology is very much a science, but one that values flexibility and change over rigidity and permanence.


The Cambridge dictionary defines science as “the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.”


For the last twenty years, I’ve made my living as a journalist and writer where I spend much of my time thinking about people. When writing a biography, personality profile or even creating a character sketch for a fictional story, I need to get a realistic and accurate understanding of why people do what they do and feel what they feel. I need to discover what drives people; I need to learn how they solve their problems and live with the consequences of their actions. Psychology seems a logical career progression for someone who spends as much time as I do trying to decipher the workings of the human mind.


Being a student of psychology is changing the way I think about people, but not in the way I feared it might. Before embarking on my course, I was worried that an academic perspective might cause me to oversimplify the experience of being human, pigeon-hole individuals or make assumptions about my world based on theories formed by great minds in the field. But this hasn’t been the case at all.


The theories I’ve learnt – the scaffoldings of the human mind as proposed by psychologists such Thorndike, Freud, Skinner, Horney, Rogers, Ellis and many others – have helped me make better sense of the chaos, frustration, irrationality, “madness” and existential difficulties that I face in my day to day life. It’s helped me to become a better problem solver both in my personal and professional life, and it’s help me to see the paradox – that while we are all so very different, we are all very much alike.


Berezow is correct that there is a lack of certainty in psychology, but I see the field’s self-doubting stance not as a flaw but as an asset that reveals a spirit of humility and earnest scientific enquiry. Perhaps rather than chiding psychology for not being able to stand firmly enough on its statistical legs, we can be grateful that we have a robust body of knowledge that enables us to improve our mental health, live more meaningful lives, and be of help to others.



258 Comments


robertroberts351
14 hours ago

What interests me about discussing values through historical biographies is how a broad idea becomes part of an ordinary day. A person's choices can help learners discuss values in a particular historical setting. For me, that is a useful way into the broader subject of historical biography education. I can imagine different answers depending on the situation, so I would want to understand the context before drawing conclusions. How can a biography lesson connect context with questions students recognise today?

Like

margaretturner9044
16 hours ago

Considering developing reasoning through language and discussion, I keep coming back to the difference between knowing about an idea and putting it into practice. Explaining why an answer makes sense can reveal more than giving the answer itself. Seen this way, language and reasoning education becomes a topic to explore rather than something to sum up too quickly. A short discussion of an everyday example would make this easier for me to connect with, especially as someone still learning about the subject. Which discussion activities encourage learners to examine their own reasoning?

Like

reese66469
a day ago

What draws my attention to helping students build consistent learning routines is the possibility of making an unfamiliar subject feel closer to everyday life. A regular starting point can reduce the effort needed to begin a demanding task. It gives me a more concrete starting point for thinking about consistent student routines. A short discussion of an everyday example would make this easier for me to connect with, especially as someone still learning about the subject. How can a routine stay useful as a student's workload changes?

Like

When it comes to connecting classroom learning with Bratkowice, I would rather understand one useful detail properly than rush through a long list of ideas. A local topic can invite pupils to contribute knowledge that is not found in their textbook. This is why I would approach Bratkowice school projects with a specific question rather than a fixed expectation. I am still thinking through the details, and a small example would help me picture how this works in practice. How would you make room for those contributions while keeping the project focused?

Like

kevinlewis4749
2 days ago

Câu hỏi trong tiêu đề khá trực diện, và bài viết cho thấy tâm lý học nằm ở vùng giao nhau giữa nghiên cứu hành vi, quan sát và cách diễn giải dữ liệu. Tôi thấy khó ở chỗ con người vừa là đối tượng nghiên cứu vừa dễ tự nhận xét về chính mình. Khi đọc phần nói về quyết định và thiên kiến, tôi liên tưởng đến những cuộc trò chuyện về game bài đổi thưởng, nơi tôi từng nghe nhắc tên SC88 nhưng chưa có trải nghiệm gì để kết luận. Bài khiến tôi thận trọng hơn với các tuyên bố quá chắc chắn, nhất là khi chúng liên quan đến hành vi con người.

Like
bottom of page