Bringhurst 1

Brit Bringhurst
Dr. Jane Drexler
Reasoning and Rational Decision Making
May 5, 2014
Signature Assignment: Is Psychology a Real Science?
Argument Analysis
In an article posted on the website for the Los Angeles Times, Alex B. Berezow wrote
about his opinion on whether Psychology is a real science or not. The conclusion that Berezow
comes to is that Psychology is, in fact, not science. This article was written because of an article
that a Psychologist posted. However, it is not a direct reply and because of that, I would argue
the burden of proof is on Berezow. The major premise in Berezows argument is that
(1)Psychology often does not fit the five major criteria for a field to be considered a science:
clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions,
reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. Specifically, Berezow argues that
Psychology (2)doesnt do a good job of defining terminology and (3)many things in this field
cannot be quantified. To support the second and third premise, Berezow uses Happiness as an
example. He states that (4)happiness does not have a clear and defined definitionthat is
generally agreed uponwithin psychology. Berezow also states that (5)happiness cannot be
quantified. That is, there is no reliable way to measure happiness. Berezow also argues that
(6)Psychology has been unable to predict behavior. And that (7)any foreign policy or intelligence
analyst would agree.
Bringhurst 2


Response by Fallacies
First of all, Berezow is stupid. Second, Berezows face doesnt meet the five criteria to be
considered a science. Nor does his posterior. Or his mothers posterior. It stands to reason he
isnt to be trusted.
I find it utterly absurd that Berezow or anyone else could believe Psychology is not a
science. To do so would stem an academic plague, spreading across the planet infecting the
minds of the innocent. Such an infection would harm children beyond repaircausing their
fragile minds to regress to a point of ape-like cognition. This cognitive regression would not
cause an immediate threat, but as the ape-minded children grew and matured they would not only
have unprotected sex, but also abuse small animals such as puppies and kittens. This travesty of
widespread abuse would cause an uproar among the hippies so great that beings from another
Bringhurst 3

worldnay, another time would be so compelled to come as see when has transpired. When they
arrive there would be chaos and in kindness they would release love-dinosaurs that fart flowers
and candy. We would all become diabetic hippies!
If I have not given enough factual proof, I have so much more.
And why would Berezow say that scientists are defending their intellectual turf?
Psychologists have no wish to trample or ruin smart grass. It is absurd to even think a thought
such as that. In fact, I would be amazed to see such a plant and so would many a Psychologist.
Its simply insulting.
I can only assume Adolf Hitler hated Psychology too.
There is another matter which is of utter importance: Psychology is young. Like an
adorable baby, Psychology must be coddled and loved and cared for delicately so as to not
damage its fragile spirit. Or do you not care about hurting babies, Berezow?
In conclusion, we must refrain from listening to such horrid ponderings from a stinky
fool. Psychology is a new and exciting science that should be loved and cherished.
Real Response
Alex Berezow offered us an argument about why Psychology is not a real science. He
states that there are five things a field must do in order to be considered a science: clearly defined
terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and,
finally, predictability and testability. In his argument, he uses happiness to show that psychology
cannot define something so simple and to show the flaws in trying to quantify it: Today,
personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you? Berezow also explains that
Bringhurst 4

Psychology has been unable to reliably predict behavior in people and that there are experts who
would agree.
Berezow does make a compelling argument. There is not definitive definition that is
widely accepted by the majority of Psychologists. Nor is there a very reliable way to quantify it
without subjective measurements. Compared to other sciences which have physical objects that
can be felt, it is easy to see why some would not view Psychology as a real science. After all,
you cant pull happiness out of someones head and poke it with a stick.
On the other hand, using happiness as an example does not tell the whole story.
Psychology has only recently started researching happiness in detail. If we were to look at some
of the other topics Psychology has discovered and researched, it paints a different picture.
Behaviorism is a subfield of psychology that has been around since the early twentieth century. It
began with a man named Pavlov discovering that when an animal associated an item person, or
some other stimulus with food, they would react as though the stimulus was the food. This has
been replicated by many different scientists throughout the years. There is also the growing field
of neuropsychology in which scientists are able to look at the brain in such detail that they can
pinpoint areas of the brain when someone feels happy or sad. Currently, there is research
being done about genetic links to mental illness and personality styles that help scientists,
doctors, and parents to predict their childs future behaviors. Simply using happinessone of the
least researched topics by psychologists in the last centuryoversimplifies the matter entirely.
As a Psychology major, I am biased to both see it as and believe that it truly is a real
science. But I am also a part of it. I have seen controlled experiments in which variables were
controlled for. They also set standards for what research articles get published. For example, a
Bringhurst 5

Psychologist would formulate a hypothesis based on research he or she has read. They would
then create an experiment and report the findings. These findings would be published but few
people would give them merit until they are reproduced. So another psychologist would replicate
the experiment as best they could and if the findings are the same or very similar. If the findings
are similar, then there would be merit to the original results. This is the process that real
Psychologists and other scientists use; it is known as the Empirical Method. Psychologists may
measure different things than Physicists or Medical Doctors but the methods are ultimately the
same.
Analysis of Response
Ultimately, I feel that I have made a strong counter-argument. The author provided
several premises that I was able to offer premises to counter. Premises (2) and (3) were strong
but based on the foundation of the construct happiness which at this point is new in
psychological research. Showing that there are many other fields of research that are much
stronger, I feel that I was able to smoothly dispute Berezows premises.
The greatest weakness in my argument is my explanation of how Psychology can predict
behavior. Ultimately, behavior is almost impossible to predict because the human being is far
more complex that human understand right now. And although there are methods for predicting
behaviorsuch as genetic tests and genetic linkages to specific mental illness and behaviorsit
is very unreliable compared to some other sciences. Physicists can say when I let go of this
object, it will fall. Psychologists cannot say if this baby is abused at this age, they will become
a car thief.
Original Article
Bringhurst 6

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed
resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't
consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:
"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only
faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from
the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer
telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.
"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry,
biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology,
sociology)."
The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's
rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that
they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired
exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.
That's right. Psychology isn't science.
Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic
requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology,
quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally,
predictability and testability.
Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly
should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and
Bringhurst 7

especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese
people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope,
so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about
you?
The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and
quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How
can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic
terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction
made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process,
but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence
analyst.
To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more
scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.
But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to
redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world;
instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under
such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science,
science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual
turf.
Bringhurst 8

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-
20120713
Identifying Fallacies in the Fallacy Response
In order of appearance, the fallacies are as follows: Ad Hominem in the first paragraph;
Slippery Slope in the second paragraph; Equivocation in the third paragraph; Reductio Ad
Hitlerum in the first stand-alone sentence; Complex Question in the fourth paragraph; Appeal to
Innovation in the last sentence. The comment about Berezows mom could also be considered a
Red Herring.