Essay Of Empiricism

Good Essays
“Hence, wherever we meet with vital phenomena that present the two aspects, physical and psychical there naturally arises a question as to the relations in which these aspects stand to each other.” (William Wundt) A majority of people believe that psychology is not a science. However, Merriam Webster defines psychology as, “the science or study of the mind and behavior”. In agreement with Merriam Webster, psychology should be considered a field of science due to the fact that it uses scientific reasoning to come up with theories, collect huge amounts of data, and relies on physiology to study human reasoning.
In addition, all sciences have a foundation of empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge is based on sense-experience and which is a fundamental requirement of scientific methods that all hypotheses and theories must rely on. Empiricism is "the premise that knowledge should be acquired through observation" (Weiten, 2001, p.22) Psychology is empirical in the sense that psychologists have to remain objective and experiment methodically. The quote lays a premise which the scientific field of psychology fits into. Since psychology, like other sciences, follow the theory of empiricism it should be a considered a science.
…show more content…
Many people might disagree with this, but they need to remember that most things in science are not proven. Science is basically a collection of theories that help us better understand the world. Einstein’s theory of general relativity cannot be proven for sure, but we take it as a fact. Psychology is also a group of theories that psychologists put together after their own studies of the human mind. It cannot be proven for sure like many other science theories, but it is always open to be disproved as time goes on and technology advances. Psychology has a lot of scientific reasoning behind it and should ,therefore be acknowledged by the scientific

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Sismondo points out some major flaws with Popper’s falsification theory, “Scientific theories are generally fairly abstract, and few make hard predictions without adopting a whole host of extra assumptions” (Sismondo, 4). As we saw before, Popper believed that theories had to have the possibility of being falsifiable but Sismondo points out that some are too abstract to test. These theories do not have the possibility of being falsifiable because they do not state a specific outcome. One can also point out that certain theories cannot be proven or falsified because we may not have the ability to test it. Modern theories concerning black holes cannot be falsified because we cannot observe a black hole from a close distance.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With scientific advances continually presenting, consensus on the definition of science adapts to new ideologies. Unless there is clear consensus on this definition, psychology’s stance as a scientific discipline will have no traction in arguments fighting for its divorce as a recognized science. According to most literature, scientific inquiries in their most natural of ideals are approached by the disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology (Haas,…

    • 2213 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    This allows for science to produce errors and mistakes, certainly not a negative thing in the eyes of every true scientist. Popper and the scientific community of all eras would argue that it is necessary to find falsifying evidence in order to more efficiently progress in the field. With all this said, a frequent criticism of this doctrine claims that the assertion that Popper is making cannot itself be subjected to falsification. This renders the need for it to be applied to suggested scientific theories as hypocritical and invalid. However, from the conception of the doctrine, through the evolution that…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is because of the frightening thought that we as individuals can never truly know everything there is to know about the universe and the world we live in. If we as individuals cannot know everything, we would feel safer if at least some person out there did. Then that person could make the more informed, correct decisions in regards to important matters. This wish to believe that someone in the world knows “everything” is what helps to fuel the false belief that “Science can prove anything.” Scientist may not come right out and say it, but if they present their theories and hypothesis in a manner intended to convince the general public, without first cautioning the possible fallibility of their statements, the scientist are, in essences, pretending to know it all. It is vital to remember that scientist are fallible human beings just like us, they are not some unbiased enlightened people in white coats.…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true using induction, since it is hard to find evidence that will assure us that contrary evidence will not be traced. To argue this, Karl Popper suggested that proper science is accomplished by a method he referred to as deduction. Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Of course not. This debate has been going on for centuries. Each side just continues brings up more plausible and convincing, yet not decisive arguments. We have discovered that the real aim of realism is to explain the world as it really is, and instrumentalism strives for empirical adequacy, ignoring accuracy. Most people likely fall towards realism considering unobservable entities such as electrons or quarks are so widely believed in.…

    • 1003 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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"…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In reality it is never just a theory. For scientist a theory is an explanation that ties up a lot of facts, making science credible and at times predictable. A theory is just the scientific prove, a theory should always be seen as open-ended. Further studying of a scientific case can bring improvements, and can also be disproven. For many a theory is just an idea that lives in people’s heads.…

    • 827 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example, the Director stated that "Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability!" (Huxley 7), and after saying the world’s motto, he believed that "If we could bokanovskify indefinitely the whole problem would be solved” (Huxley 7). He’s saying that science is control. There are many people today who believe that through science, people may find the power that is necessary for the world. This power, though, is much too strong.…

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Pragmatism discards the idea that the teleos of thought is to define, embody, or reflect reality. Instead, pragmatists consider thought an instrument for prediction, problem solving and action. William James says that truth happens to an idea in science when three things occur: when theories or laws provide a more intelligible answer; when it leads to pragmatic ends and when it facilitates scientific conversation. But the thing is, we don’t have this objective knowledge. Because of this we cannot follow the scientific positivist view of…

    • 1321 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics