Ashutosh Jogalekar's post is a response to a previous article, by Alex Berezow. The original article argues that psychology is a not a "real" science. While Jogalekar agrees with Berezow to an extent, he explains in further detail his contrasting views why psychology may not be a "real" science but why it is still a science. Berezow claims that in order to be considered a field of science it must have five certain qualities: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, and predictably and testability. Jogalekar first states that Berezow's defining qualities for what makes something scientific are reasonable, yet incomplete and narrow. He believes Berezow's criteria should be used more "like a ruler for psychology to examine its own gaps and goals" (Jogalekar 2013).
His defense for psychology begins early on by confronting first against what he states is Berezow's largest argument against psychology; lack of adequate definitions and …show more content…
All of these examples help strengthen Jogalekar's argument that psychology is a "real" science. Jogalekar chose these experiments because in some way or another they each differ from "real" science standards, but as mentioned by Jogalekar, it is not likely one would find a person who would argue any of them are not "real" science. Having knowledge about one or more of these experiments would be helpful to create a more informed opinion about either writer's argument. The best opinion is a well-informed opinion. Although Jogalekar's statements rock back and forth between arguing Berezow's main point and agreeing with others, he has written a strong article about why psychology should be considered a "real" science, or at the minimum why psychology deserves recognition for being on the developmental path to a "real"
His defense for psychology begins early on by confronting first against what he states is Berezow's largest argument against psychology; lack of adequate definitions and …show more content…
All of these examples help strengthen Jogalekar's argument that psychology is a "real" science. Jogalekar chose these experiments because in some way or another they each differ from "real" science standards, but as mentioned by Jogalekar, it is not likely one would find a person who would argue any of them are not "real" science. Having knowledge about one or more of these experiments would be helpful to create a more informed opinion about either writer's argument. The best opinion is a well-informed opinion. Although Jogalekar's statements rock back and forth between arguing Berezow's main point and agreeing with others, he has written a strong article about why psychology should be considered a "real" science, or at the minimum why psychology deserves recognition for being on the developmental path to a "real"