How can I argue the 'Psychology as a Science' debate using the biological approach?

Watch
GattMariyibi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I'm studying the psychology as a science debate and I have to be able to be able to use the biological approach to support my argument; any ideas? I've researched it but I'm a little confused about it. How does synaptic transmission and brain scanning link into the debate?
0
reply
goam
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Talk about how the research methods (animal experiments, brain scans e.t.c ) it employs is scientific and give examples of studies that have used those methods; the bio approach also tests hypotheses that are falsifiable and doesn't measure/study abstract ideas/theories
1
reply
GattMariyibi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by goam)
Talk about how the research methods (animal experiments, brain scans e.t.c ) it employs is scientific and give examples of studies that have used those methods; the bio approach also tests hypotheses that are falsifiable and doesn't measure/study abstract ideas/theories
Okay thanks for the ideas; how would I go about saying how for example brain scans are scientific? (This is what is confusing me) I know that I could use studies such as Raine et al to support the use of brain scanning I'm just unsure how I would say brain scanning is scientific.
0
reply
goam
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by GattMariyibi)
Okay thanks for the ideas; how would I go about saying how for example brain scans are scientific? (This is what is confusing me) I know that I could use studies such as Raine et al to support the use of brain scanning I'm just unsure how I would say brain scanning is scientific.
I'll PM you my notes if you want??
0
reply
1420787
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Psychology is to biology what a toddler playing snooker is to physics.
0
reply
GattMariyibi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by goam)
I'll PM you my notes if you want??
Please, that would be a great help thanks
0
reply
GattMariyibi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
Personally I like Milgram's original 1965 study the best as there's a lot to talk about and it's really easy to remember if you take an interest in it. I also like Sherif's realistic conflict theory. I'm not a big fan of the cognitive approach it's a bit boring in my opinion but there are a few studies such as Miller 1959 (I'm not too sure if that's right) or Baddeley, they are quite good to look at. I think my favourite in the cognitive approach is Bartlett's reconstructive memory which can be applied to eye witness testimonies, there are loads to choose from just pick one you like the best.
1
reply
GattMariyibi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
No problem , oh yeah I forgot about Skinner, that's quite good as well but Milgram's study will be one of the first experiments that you'll look at in detail on the course, and reconstructive memory is exactly that, if you need any help with explaining any of those studies just PM me because I've been studying them all year and I basically know all about them (Mostly the social ones).
0
reply
Peroxidation
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by GattMariyibi)
I'm studying the psychology as a science debate and I have to be able to be able to use the biological approach to support my argument; any ideas? I've researched it but I'm a little confused about it. How does synaptic transmission and brain scanning link into the debate?
This is going to make me very unpopular with psychology students on here but here goes.

Put simply, you can't. Psychology is a pseudoscience, that is to say, it is presented in a scientific manner but it isn't actually scientific at all. A common misconception is that things like brain scanning and studying the nervous system (including the brain) are part of psychology, but they're not. Those things come under the field of neuroscience, which is an actual science. The difference lies in the fact that neuroscience is the study of the nervous system while psychology is simply the study of behaviours.

Psychologists are amazing at analysing statistics, so they're able to say to the neuroscientists: "hey there mate, we've spotted some cool behavioural trends. Can you help us find out the how and why of it with your awesome brain scanners?" The neuroscientists then work their magic and produce detailed explanations of what goes on, why it goes on and how it goes on. All the psychologists do is tell them what to investigate. In short, psychologists collect a bunch of data and spot trends, neuroscientists research why those trends exist.

When asked the question of "are you scientists," most psychologists always claim to do the neuroscientists' work. But they don't in reality, because that stuff's not psychology at all. Don't let those sneaky credit-stealers trick you.

(Original post by goam)
Talk about how the research methods (animal experiments, brain scans e.t.c ) it employs is scientific and give examples of studies that have used those methods; the bio approach also tests hypotheses that are falsifiable and doesn't measure/study abstract ideas/theories
That's not psychology though, that's neuroscience.
0
reply
goam
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Peroxidation)

That's not psychology though, that's neuroscience.
What I stated is perfectly valid for AS/A2 psychology which is what the OP was asking for. As to whether psychology is or isn't a science isn't important, OP just wants to do well in her psych exams.
0
reply
Another
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Peroxidation)
This is going to make me very unpopular with psychology students on here but here goes.

Put simply, you can't. Psychology is a pseudoscience, that is to say, it is presented in a scientific manner but it isn't actually scientific at all. A common misconception is that things like brain scanning and studying the nervous system (including the brain) are part of psychology, but they're not. Those things come under the field of neuroscience, which is an actual science. The difference lies in the fact that neuroscience is the study of the nervous system while psychology is simply the study of behaviours.

Psychologists are amazing at analysing statistics, so they're able to say to the neuroscientists: "hey there mate, we've spotted some cool behavioural trends. Can you help us find out the how and why of it with your awesome brain scanners?" The neuroscientists then work their magic and produce detailed explanations of what goes on, why it goes on and how it goes on. All the psychologists do is tell them what to investigate. In short, psychologists collect a bunch of data and spot trends, neuroscientists research why those trends exist.

When asked the question of "are you scientists," most psychologists always claim to do the neuroscientists' work. But they don't in reality, because that stuff's not psychology at all. Don't let those sneaky credit-stealers trick you.



That's not psychology though, that's neuroscience.
In your opinion, what is the difference between neuroscience, neuropsychology and psychology? With the last two being almost the same thing, it's a little far fetched to call one a science and the other not.
0
reply
Findlay6
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
These things are needed for something to be considered a 'science'

Objectivity – recorded without bias or influenced by others.
Control – studies should be within a controlled environment
Predictability – We should be able to predict the future based on previous results.
Hypothesis Testing – theories generate hypotheses which either support or disprove a theory.
Replication – Experiments should be able to replicate exactly to produce valid and reliable results.

As the biological approach relies on laboratory studies and experiments in general, it can predict results, control environments which are easy to replicate, be objective and can produce hypotheses.

Behaviourist approach would be in the middle as it relies on lab. experiments to an extent but considers that the environment plays a part.

The opposite side would be Psychodynamic/Humanism who don't use any scientific techniques and only produce qualitative data.

You'd want to include Poppers falsification idea and Kuhn's idea of paradigms and you could include a debate (nature/nurture to relate it back to research)
0
reply
EllainKahlo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Yes, it relies on objective empirical data just like all the hard sciences i.e. brain scans are used, produces quantitative data and uses scientific methods and controls. That is the definition of a science. Psychology is more broad than that however, as it uses qualitative data from the other approaches where other people try to argue it isn't a science i.e. Psychodynamic and Cognitive approaches most significantly but just because it uses qualitative and quantitative data doesn't mean it isn't a science. We'd be screwed without psychology and the 'it isn't a science' argument, is really unhelpful in many ways.
0
reply
meeksm2105
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Strength of agency theory


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (51)
19.84%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (58)
22.57%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (48)
18.68%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (54)
21.01%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (22)
8.56%
I haven't started researching yet (24)
9.34%

Watched Threads

View All