Ashutosh Jogalekar's Post Summary

Good Essays
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"

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    It does, for the most part, seem good not to beat your children and therefore the moral assertion is: do not beat your children. Humans do moral reasoning with their brains – this much seems true, however, this does not mean that biology and neurobiology should be the moral dictators of right and wrong. Nor does it mean that things that benefit the public good or even the individual good are morally right for the same reason that eugenics might benefit humanity but is morally abhorrent. A better line of inquiry might not be to state that morality finds a firm basis in science, but to ask how science might justify and assist the advancements of morality already done in…

    • 904 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Positive psychology's development into its own unique field of study under the umbrella term of "psychology" was not without its obstacles. As Alan S. Waterman (2013) discusses in his paper entitled "The Humanistic Psychology-Positive Psychology Divide: Contrasts in Philosophical Foundations," humanists, and positivists both view their perspective as more insightful. With this, the tension between the two perspectives, along with them having different concerns and no commonality, causes debate, which, in turn, creates philosophical problems and confusion among other researchers and psychologists. Waterman (2013) elaborates on these two psychological perspectives and their views on positive psychology. Here, his ideas about the humanist-positivists…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Induction Methodology

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The position was taken here is in support of deduction methodology as the best way to approach theory in science. Induction method starts with specific observations to develop a final general statement that explains the phenomena but this does not guarantee the accuracy and the truth of its conclusion. Unlike induction, deduction relies on continuous logical and empirical testing of the hypothesis that should be the foundation of any science. In fact, supporting critical thinking and logic to gain the true knowledge are essential in today’s…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Philosophers continue to revisit these ideas, supporting their initial claims and making counter arguments to rebuttals. While realism supports the idea that science is based on facts and the truth, using scientific theories to accurately depict the world, anti-realism claims that the purpose of science is to find theories that are empirically correct due to one’s own observations of the physical world. Ultimately, the debate of realism and anti-realism concern the aim of science, trying to discover why scientists perform certain actions opposed to others as a result of their individual beliefs. It comprises of the nature of scientific knowledge, how we can attain and are limited by it, and the overall interpretation of the scientific enterprise. Inconsistencies can be highlighted in both arguments, however, both embrace a certain truth if observed through an unbiased perspective.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Secondly, Karl Popper thinks that if science had followed an induction path, it would not have made such progress. An example case would be described when a scientist arrives at a generalization. If she/ he follows the induction method, he or she will go in search of instances which establish it as truth. If he/ she finds an instance which conflicts with her/ his generalization and establishment, then the scientist is required to qualify the generalization mentioning that the generalization is really true except, in the cases where it has been held to be false or rather unsupported. The type of such qualifications imposes heavy limitations and curtailment restrictions on the scope of the generalization.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mainstream Psychology

    • 1924 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The extent to which psychology meets the criteria of a science has been questioned. Critical theorists have highlighted the ways in which scientific/psychological accounts are constructed, therefore challenging the notion that these simply reflect the truth/facts. In addition the role of values and ideologies have been highlighted, further challenging the notion that psychology is objective and value free. However it has been indicated by those such as Harris that the role of personal biases and political agendas in psychology’s history may have been subject to…

    • 1924 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, this does not mean that Kuhn rejects completely the falsification principle. Because both philisophers agree that one time falsification is not enough to cause scientists/people to stop believing in a science or a theory. Lastly, I would like to express my opinion based on my reading about critisim of Popper and puzzle-solver science of Kuhn, what Kuhn 's and Popper 's contribution looks more complemantary than contradictory even though Kuhn 's view differs from Popper 's view in many ways. However, this is a subject for a long essay not for short essay. 3.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    First he posits the argument that the “diverse phenomena” referenced in the new proposition are not all that diverse. Apparent diversity, is the result of diverse areas of science, however, the diversity in the science as a discipline doesn’t necessitate diversity in theories. Philosopher of science Carl Hempel, eloquently describes universal characteristics in theory testing: “The formulation of a theory will require the specification of two kinds of principles; let us call them internal principles and bridge principles for short. The former will characterize the basic entities and processes invoked by the theory and the laws to which they are assumed to conform. The latter will indicate how the processes envisaged by the theory are related to empirical phenomena with which we are already acquainted, and which the theory may then explain, predict, or retrodict.” (Philosophy of Natural Science pp.…

    • 811 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Carnap has his views on verificationism where a new theory would explain the world better than its previous one, and a theory is only scientific if it can be tested in principle. Popper tags his theories with falsificationism (we can not fully verify something, can only accept it until better evidence is available). Therefore, a theory is an explanation of the world that can be based on older theories, and the theory itself can be the origin of future and better theories. But, the difference between Carnap and Popper is that Popper adds an extra level of falsification to Carnap’s criteria of demarcation. Carnap said that a theory can only be scientific or unscientific due to its ability to be verified.…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Bas Van Faassen Analysis

    • 721 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Bas van Fraassen has centered a large part of his philosophical career on studying scientific realism and describing a form of anti-realism called constructive empiricism. Van Fraassen is certainly steadfast in anti-realist belief, but doesn’t seem to have to alter too much of the realist’s perspective to form his beliefs. According to his definition of scientific realism “Science aims to give us, in its theories, a literally true story of what the world is like.”1 This is not a statement that he would necessarily disagree with in a vague sense, but the specifics of what science is actually aiming to explain and the power that theories actually hold is what he refines. The accepted definition of scientific realism, outside of Van Fraassen’s…

    • 721 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays