Abstract
Psychologists generally reject the reductionist, physicalist, “nothing but” stance of the natural sciences. At the same time they consider their discipline a science and wonder why it does not enjoy the status (and funding) of the natural sciences. Ferguson American Psychologist, 70, 527-542 (2015), Lilienfeld American Psychologist, 67, 111-129 (2012), and Schwartz et al. American Psychologist, 71, 52-70 (2016) are among those who adopt a soft naturalism of nonreductive physicalism which declares, or implies, that when it comes to humans, there is more than what the natural sciences can unravel. They envision psychology as scientific in the epistemological sense of generating reproducible results, but reject the reductive ontology of science which currently points to the undeterminable chance of quantum theory as the closest physics has come to the beginnings and what might loosely be called the foundation of the universe (e.g., Bridgman Harper's, 158, 443-451 1929; Eddington 1948). The case made here is that any science, including a psychological one, must be based on a naturalist ontology. This implies restricting the term science to disciplines which not only meet epistemological criteria like reproducibility, but which also adopt—on the ontological level—the parsimonious assumption that at present it makes sense to think that “there is nothing but time and chance” (e.g., Cox and Forshaw 2011; Crease and Goldhaber 2014; Rorty 1989). From this perspective, psychology emerges as two distinct disciplines, one a natural science, the other a human science in the broad sense of science as scientia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Al-Khalili, J. (2003). Quantum: A guide for the perplexed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Atkins, P. (2011). On being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berezov, A. B. (2012, July 13). Why psychology isn't science. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713.
Berry, R. J. (Ed.). (2012). The lion handbook of Science & Christianity. Oxford: Lion Books.
Bickhard, M. H. (2003). Variations in variation and selection: The ubiquity of the variation-and-selection-retention ratchet in emergent organizational complexity. Part II: Quantum field theory Foundations of Science, 8, 283–293.
Bickhard, M. H. (2011). Does process matter? An introduction to the special issue on interactivism. Axiomathes, 21, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-010-9124-x.
Bridgman, P. W. (1929, March). The new vision of science. Harper's, 158, 443–451.
Bryson, B. (2004). A short history of nearly everything. Random House (Anchor Canada).
Buck, C. D. (1949). A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Reprinted.
Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. (1988). 1988. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap.
Claiborne, R. (1989). The roots of English. New York: Doubleday (Anchor Books).
Cox, B., & Forshaw, J. (2011). The quantum universe. Boston: DaCapo Press.
Crease, R. P., & Goldhaber, A. S. (2014). The quantum moment. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist., 12, 671–684.
Dawkins, R. (1988). The blind watchmaker. New York: Penguin Books.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dilthey, W. (1883/1966). Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften [Introduction to the human sciences]. Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Dilthey, W. (1894/1964). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie [Ideas about a descriptive and analytical psychology]. In S. B. G. Teubner (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften (Vol. 5, pp. 139–240). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Eddington, A. S. (1928/1948). The nature of the physical world. Cambridge University Press.
Einstein, A. (1917). Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung [On the quantum theory of radiation]. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 18, 121-128. (Original publication in the Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft Zürich, (1916, Nr. 18).
Einstein, A. (2005/1950). Physics, philosophy, and scientific progress. Physics Today, 58, 46–48.
Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Everybody knows psychology is not a real science. American Psychologist, 70, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003940.
Gantt, E. E., & Williams, R. N. (2014). Psychology and the legacy of newtonianism: Motivation, intentionality, and the ontological gap. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031587.
Gleick, J. (2018). Review of Adam Becker’s What is real? (p. 17). New York Times: Sunday Book Review.
Hands, J. (2017). Cosmosapiens: Human evolution from the origin of the universe. New York: Overlook Duckworth.
Harari, Y. N. (2016). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2012). The grand design. New York: Bantam Books.
Henriques, G. (2016). The "is Psychology a Science?" debate. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate.
Hume, D. (1748/1988). In A. Flew (Ed.), An enquiry concerning human understanding. La Salle: Open Court Publishing.
Kant, I. (1781/1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. and Trans.) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knapp, N. (2016). Der Quantensprung des Denkens [The quantum jump in thinking]. Reinbeck b. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963). Psychology: A study of a science. Volumes 1–6. New York: McGraw Hill.
Koch, S. (1993). "Psychology" or "psychological studies"? American Psychologist, 48, 902–904.
Krauss, L. M. (2012). A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. New York: Free Press.
Krauss, L. M. (2017). The greatest story ever told—so far. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023963.
Michotte, A. E. (1946/1963). The perception of causality (T. R Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Morf, M. E. (In press). Supernaturalism and naturalism as opposites and complements. In T. Kono et al. (Eds.) 2017 Proceedings of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology (ISTP). Concord: Captus Press.
Mukherjee, S. (2016). The gene: An intimate history. New York: Scribner.
Nietzsche, F. (1956). In K. Schlechta (Ed.), Werke (Vol. 3). Carl Hauser: Munich.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ruse, M. (2006). Darwinism and its discontents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rychlak, J. F. (1993). A suggested principle of complementarity for psychology: In theory, not method. American Psychologist., 48, 933–942.
Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Mecca, A., & Sauvigné, K. C. (2016). The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist, 71, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039678.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist, 44, 13–18.
Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9339-x.
Sperry, R. W. (1993). The impact and promise of the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist., 48, 878–885.
Tannenbaum, M. (2013). Psychology's brilliant, beautiful, scientific messiness. Retrieved from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/psychology-8217-s-brilliant-beautiful-scientific-messiness/
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. G.E.M. Anscombe & R. Rhees (Eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morf, M.E. Agency, Chance, and the Scientific Status of Psychology. Integr. psych. behav. 52, 491–507 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9449-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9449-3