All good scientists practice critical thinking and base their scientific beliefs primarily on empirical evidence. Let’s now turn to the goals or objectives of science.
Objectives of Science
The goals of science are to describe, explain, predict, and control some event(s). A young science first must describe its subject matter. This is the first step, and empiricism is the primary method of doing this. A mature science may be busier with prediction and control. Early astronomers, for example, spent their time describing what they observed in the skies. Only later, when a body of empirical evidence had been gathered, could they begin to explain how planets, stars, and other cosmic entities were formed, interacted, and died.
To Describe
Description of its subject matter is the first objective of a science. The subject matter of psychology is human behavior and mental processes. Describing general laws of human behavior is the work of many researchers in psychology today. Sometimes animal models are used to study human behavior. For example, Frank Epling (deceased) and David Pierce of the University of Alberta have spent several years studying anorexia nervosa in laboratory rats. They have described the phenomenon quite clearly. Rats will develop anorexia if they are given access to a running wheel and if they are given an adequate amount of food for a specific period of time each day. The rats will, over time, spend excessive amounts of time running and will eat less and less, even when adequate food is available, but only when that food is offered for a limited time each day. Are rats the same as humans? Of course not, but this kind of research may offer some insights into similar processes in humans.
To Explain
Once we have described the general laws of our subject matter, we then proceed to try to explain those trends. Epling and Pierce postulated that excessive exercise prompts the body to produce a lot of beta endorphins, which suppress appetite and cause feelings of well-being, sometimes called the runner’s high. This, then, was their explanation for why rats become anorectic under their laboratory conditions. This may not help us explain the problem with humans; humans suffering from anorexia and bulimia have lower levels of beta endorphins.
To Predict
Once a behavior has been well described and an explanation has been offered, the next step is often to make predictions from the explanation. If the predictions are not confirmed, the explanation is considered faulty and must be revised. A prediction that might be made from Epling and Pierce’s explanation for the development of anorexia in rats would be that people with anorexia engage in excessive exercise. Epling and Pierce found that excessive physical exercise in anorectic patients was reported quite often and was thought by professionals to be a side effect of the disorder (Epling & Pierce, 1992). Another interesting prediction Epling and Pierce made was that people in some professions would be more likely than others to become anorectic. For example, according to their model, ballet dancers (who are required to be very active) should be more likely to develop anorexia than models. Both groups must control their weight to be successful, but only ballet dancers must also be active. Epling and Pierce (1992) report that the available data support this prediction.
To Control
Once a science has described, explained, and made predictions about its subject matter, control of the phenomena can be attempted. Applied psychology has a mandate to take the principles of behavior demonstrated by researchers and use them to help with problems people have. For example, a useful control application based on Epling and Pierce’s work might be to treat people with anorexia by reducing the amount of exercise they are getting, rather than trying to change their eating habits.
We have seen that scientists are critical thinkers, their beliefs are founded on empirical evidence, and their goals in doing their science are to describe, explain, predict, and control the subject matter of the discipline. Science, therefore, is a way of thinking and a way of doing things. Scientists view the world differently than many nonscientists do. The process of scientific inquiry involves certain assumed principles or tenets about how the world works.
The Tenets of Science
The scientific approach to discovering truth assumes several fundamental principles about how the world works and demands that certain criteria be met. Some people misunderstand some of these tenets of science. Perhaps the most misunderstood is the doctrine of determinism.
Determinism
Determinism is a doctrine of belief that events have natural causes. For psychologists, the events we are interested in are behaviors of humans. When we apply this doctrine to psychology, then, we assume that human behavior is determined or caused by natural phenomena, not supernatural events. In other words, we believe that behavior is neither random nor under the control of nonnatural events. Many people confuse this doctrine with another, predeterminism. They are not the same. To say that behavior is determined by natural events is not to say that our behavior is somehow predetermined or predestined. Some religious approaches do have a predeterministic bent, but psychology does not.
To say that human behavior is determined is to say that humans behave for reasons that can be understood in terms of natural laws of the universe. We may not know what those laws are in any particular case, but we assume that those laws are operating nonetheless.
Empiricism
Scientists, including psychologists, rely on real evidence, empirical data, to confirm or refute claims. Intuition, faith, and even logic are not enough. There must be empirical support before a scientist will accept a claim.
Replicability
Scientists require that findings be replicable before they are accepted. A single finding may be just a fluke and not reliable. This is of particular importance in psychology because our subject matter, human behavior, is so variable. Behavior varies among people in the same or similar situations. Indeed, the behavior of one person varies even in what appear to be identical conditions.
Falsifiability
For scientists, hypotheses and theories must be falsifiable through empirical research. They must be testable such that they could be shown to be false. Some theories are just not refutable. Consider Freud’s theory about repression. The assumption is that psychological problems of adults are rooted in childhood trauma. Is this hypothesis falsifiable? We don’t think so. If an adult can recall and describe a childhood trauma, the Freudian will conclude that his or her current problems developed because of the trauma. If an adult cannot recall any trauma, the Freudian concludes that he or she has repressed the events into his or her unconscious mind. This hypothesis cannot be proven wrong. This hypothesis, like much of Freud’s theory, is pseudoscience. Consider another example of pseudoscience. A psychic who is brought into a laboratory and asked to demonstrate his powers in a controlled setting and who cannot do so claims that the air of skepticism of the researchers is responsible for interfering with the psychic forces. The psychic wins either way. His powers are proven when he demonstrates evidence of psychic ability. His powers, however, are not disproved when he does not.
Parsimony
A
