Natural and Social sciences bear the term “science.” The most basic definition of science states that it is a systematized body of knowledge that uses scientific method in dealing with its problems and concerns. Both disciplines are compared and contrasted on different level of grounds such as invariability of observations, objectivity of observations and explanations, verifiability of hypotheses, exactness of findings, measurability of phenomena, constancy of numerical relationships, predictability of future events, distance from everyday experience, standards of admission and requirements.
While it is visible that these two disciplines greatly differ in many ways, they also have similarities. For example these two disciplines have the same philosophy – they aim to present explanations, methods, empirical arguments, theories, hypotheses and so on. To say that social science is inferior and underdeveloped “science” has long been debated by scholars. The bottom line is, both disciplines stemmed out in different context and thus should look at them separately.
Equally relevant to include in this essay are the variants of psychology. By looking at this lens, one can have a better grasp with regards to the evolution and development of the said discipline. Psychology has been always intertwined with philosophy. David Hume and Kant were among the philosophers who developed this field. One of the earliest scholars who wrote before Hume and Kant is Hartley (1749). He started where he believed Newton and Locke had put aside – how “vibrations” in the central nervous system give rise to “ideas.” His Observations on Man (1749) offered a venue to discuss a complete system particularly giving emphasis on how our ideas are generated. Eventually, he was regarded as the “founder of British associationism.” Hartley’s psychology was a combination of physiology and psychology which offered a causal account of sensation in terms of Newton’s theory of vibrations. In other words, this type of psychology was not separated with the field of natural sciences.
Following Hartley, Mill revived British associationism by making psychology a combination of a universal non-physiological psychology and a social human nature. He argued that “humans were everywhere social and were so by virtue of social phenomena, one could explain human nature by understanding society, but not the other way around. Mill’s attempt is not a total separation of physiology and psychology but a combination of the two. Another scholar that made a ground-breaking account was Spencer. He argued that physiology must exclude all reference to consciousness because it is an objective science. Spencer made a way to view separately the two disciplines and thus making psychology more oriented with the discipline of social sciences. The next decades of the study of psychology geared towards fitting it with the discipline of social sciences.
Critical psychology differs from mainstream psychology. The latter covers the usual methodology of psychology where researchers and practitioners just need to look for objectives and uncover the underlying explanation of a particular human behavior. Afterwards, they help the individual to cope with his situation usually by proposing minor reforms in the societal institutions. While there are convergences, critical psychologist perceived and used the term critical “to describe a variety of approaches that differ in philosophical justifications, terminology, political strategy, and ultimate priorities” Critical psychology also differs in terms of the central concerns that it tackles. The first central concern that it talks about is individualism and meaning. Critical psychologists argued that the problems with the mainstream psychology is their attempt to strengthen values and institutions which they (critical psychologists) believed that hinders the people from living meaningful lives. The second central concern that the critical psychologists address is oppression and inequality. They claim that societal values and norms do not benefit the entire human population. In fact, individuals who belong to powerless groups suffer more thus creating a greater disparity in the society. Lastly, their central concern focuses on intentions, consequences and dilemmas. This is as a response to the mainstream psychology’s reinforcement of oppressive institutions. Critical psychologists believed that the primary concern of a psychology should not end with his intention rather the consequences of this intention. In a nutshell, critical psychologists give emphasis on the values of social justice, self-determination and participation, caring and compassion, health and human diversity. In a nutshell, critical psychology differs from the previous variants of psychology discussed because it is viewed as a liberating force not just a mere way of explaining human behavior. Some of us may even regard this type of psychology as post-modernist because it addresses societal problems and how should we respond.
Is Psychology a Science?
According to Mukunda (1997), there are several reasons why psychology be considered as science. The first reason is empirical falsifiability which claims that a truly scientific theory is one which can be empirically tested. However, there seems to be a problem in line with this claim because there are instances that there are evidences that do not completely verify a theory. Hence, as long as one can find a counter-example, then the theory satisfies this requirement. Applying it to psychology, Mukunda used Freud’s psychoanalytic account of personality and Piaget’s theories of the cognitive development of children. Second, Mukunda argues that “a good scientific theory explains the existing evidence making as few independent assumptions as possible.” In light of giving the simplest possible explanation, psychologists tend to come up with the very least number of assumptions to explain a certain phenomenon. However, this is quite difficult task since they believe that there are many factors that account for human behavior, for example. Lastly, there should be an experimental control over a large number of variables. This is true with psychological experiments making it a science.
They use many individuals in each experiment, in the hope that idiosyncratic unsystematic errors will ‘cancel each other out’; they use experimental designs which guard against systematic bias (eg., control group, random assignment, placebo, etc.); and they use tools of statistical inference to enable them to generalize their findings beyond their samples.
Mukunda does not only mention about these three evidences where we see that psychology follows a scientific method as well. The last part of her argument talks about psychology’s own language especially its measurements. Like any other disciplines, psychology has developed its own dimension in terms of language, numerical and spatial. These evidences show that it is not only a science but also a mature science discipline.
Now that it has been proven that psychology can be considered as a science, the next task deals with labeling it whether belonging to natural sciences or social sciences. According to Ledoux (2002), the problem why confusion exists is because most of us associate psychology with behaviorology. If we successfully differentiate and draw a line between these two disciplines, then we can see that psychology is outside the realm of natural sciences.
Ledoux claims that behaviorology and psychology do not have the same approach to their subject matters. The former “disallows the inclusion of non–natural events in its considerations and, by that approach to its subject matter, joins the ranks of the natural sciences.” On the other hand, psychology allows the non-natural events in its considerations. This is true since it was discussed earlier the important role of institutions in shaping human behavior. The second difference is how they approach the study of a subject matter. Behaviorology primarily deals with the functional relations between behavior and independent variables. These variables can be found in the external environment and are subject to interventions which eventually lead to behavior changes. On the other hand, psychology approaches “non-naturalistically, hypothesized relations between behavior and a range of variables, including the psyche, mind, self, and other non–natural, magical, mystical internal agents that are put forward as causes of behavior.” Looking at the differences of the two disciplines, one can conclude that psychology does not share the same methods and subjects with the behaviorology making it apart from the natural sciences.
Knowledge is dynamic. As our society changes, there are things needed to go with the flow. Substantial progress in knowledge and applications let scholars construct and re-construct ideas. The field of social sciences and psychology are not exception to this kind of trend. However, social scientists remain firm in their claim that psychology belongs to the discipline. Unless there are future studies that would show and deconstruct this idea, we can accept it and probably will lead to another shift of viewing the discipline.
Bibliography
Duverger, Maurice. “An Introduction to the Social Sciences.” USA: Frederick and Praeger. 1964.
Fox et al. “Critical Psychology an Introduction.” Sage Publications. 2009.
Ledoux, Stephen F. “Defining Natural Sciences. Behaviorology Today.” Volume 5, pp.34-36. 2002.
Manicas, Peter. “A History and Philosophy of Social Science.” Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1987.
Martin, M. “Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science.” MIT Press. 2000.
Mukunda, Kamala V. “Is Psychology a Science?” 1997. Retrieved from on December 16, 2011.
Robert Audi, ed. “The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.” Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Word Count 1925
1 Ledoux, Stephen F. Defining Natural Sciences. Behaviorology Today, Volume 5, pp.34-36. 2002. p.34.
Duverger, Maurice. An Introduction to the Social Sciences. USA: Frederick and Praeger. 1964. p.12.
Martin, M. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. MIT Press. 2000. p.5-6.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Manicas, Peter. A History and Philosophy of Social Science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1987. p.169.
Fox et al (2009) Critical Psychology an Introduction. Sage Publications.p.4.
Fox et al (2009).pp. 7-8.
Mukunda, Kamala V. Is Psychology a Science? 1997. p.60.