This is a hot topic!! Science uptake figures are 'science fiction', says report Labour has been accused of fiddling the figures on the number of students studying science and maths, covering up the nation's skills crisis. The Government now includes as "science", courses such as psychology. Telegraph, 27 September 2009

What is Science: Science comes from the Latin word scientia meaning knowledge! The science of psychology is the knowledge of human behaviour obtained through the scientific method

Or a more complicated definition? According to the American Philosopher Khun, a science should have a shared set of : Assumptions Scientific methods Terminology Does psychology share these things? American 1922-1996

Psychology is still a relatively new science! The one thing that may have caused some to label psychology as unscientific may be the fact that there are conflicting explanations or assumptions about behaviour. However in the early days of pure science there were also conflicting explanations (the world is flat or the world is round). Even today – what is causing global warming? Psychology is still a relatively new science!

A really narrow definition? If one takes the definition of science as meaning that there is irrefutable proof of an existence of one theory about human behaviour which can be reliably measured then one may say psychology is not scientific.

How can we reliably measure something when we are not sure what ‘it’ is ! A science should provide precise (operationalised) hypotheses which can be tested in order to support or refute a theory. We cannot be precise about some things like IQ because we are not really sure how to define it!

Falsification Falsification: something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. True science should be able not only to show that the data is true but also that it cannot be proven untrue!

Research should be falsifiable? One of the main theorists lacking scientific objectivity is Freud. It may be difficult to prove his theory true but it is equally difficult to prove it false! Very annoying for some people who insist on us being scientific!

These things also help us be scientific: Theories should provide general laws or principles to allow predictions of future events. (can we predict behaviour using psychological research?) Research or theories should be nomothetic (apply to the whole population). Is this true of psychology ?

Kuhn said the physical sciences are different to the social sciences Kuhn said that the physical sciences could hold one unifying theory or paradigm (the world is flat) which may then shift when new knowledge comes along (the world is round) However Kuhn said we could not apply this approach to the social sciences as there is not one unifying theory upon which we could test our ideas.

Is there one paradigm? Behaviourism and Laws of Effect The closest psychology has got to one paradigm was Behaviourism: Behaviourism was popular for its scientific simplicity – the probability of a behaviour occurring in certain situations depends on the response that the behaviour as evoked in the past in similar situations (based on positive and negative reinforcement).

Behaviourism and Reductionism With DNA and new technology we know behaviour is more complex. We are unlikely to get any easy answers. No one simple theory has replaced Behaviourism.

Human sciences compared to physical sciences Human behaviour has far more variables and each variable is more difficult to isolate and control than in the physical sciences: Genetics Hormones and physical function Personality Upbringing IQ Past experiences Culture Gender Age Free will Disease

Even when we want to be scientific Ethical dilemmas occur: we cannot always isolate and test variables without being cruel or unethical (adoption and separation etc.) Animals have been used to overcome ethical issues and test more rigorously or scientifically. However we cannot be sure that we can apply animal research findings to human behaviour.

However do not despair! Psychologists do use scientific methods – they manipulate and control variables, they repeat their studies to make sure they are reliable and they triangulate their methods to ensure cross reliability and validity.

Things researchers do to be more scientific: They use larger representative samples They use independent groups to be sure there are no order effects They deceive their participants to avoid demand characteristics. They use statistical tests of probability to ensure their results are not due to chance

Oh dear there are still problems! In the laboratory, in interviews, or questionnaires etc, people are prone to demand characteristics or social desirability bias unless we deceive them! When we observe others we are prone to the expectancy effect and interview or observer bias! Our lab experiments lack ecological validity

Looking again on the bright side Recently biological psychology has provided evidence and theories that are more scientific and reliable and less prone to demand characteristics or experimenter bias. They are now able to use MRI scanners and DNA analysis and a whole range of complex scientific equipment to measure behaviour whilst a person is alive. Raine had been able to show how aggression is focussed in certain parts of the brain. Gottesman and Shields have shown that abnormal behaviour like schizophrenia is genetically inherited. Maguire showed the changes in the hippocampus when we learn navigational skills etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TMXnh2wtUY&feature=related

So hands up! Who thinks that psychology is a science?