Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Psychology is to biology what a toddler playing snooker is to physics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goam)
    I'll PM you my notes if you want??
    Please, that would be a great help thanks
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, just starting psychology, sorry to barge in this thread but who would you say could be interesting to research for psychology for an essay, preferably an experiment such as Milgrim/Milgram (electric shock, can't spell ) or someone in the cognitive field? Thanks!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LDS16)
    Hi, just starting psychology, sorry to barge in this thread but who would you say could be interesting to research for psychology for an essay, preferably an experiment such as Milgrim/Milgram (electric shock, can't spell ) or someone in the cognitive field? Thanks!
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GattMariyibi)
    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.
    Thank you for your help I was likely to do either Milgram or Skinner, I wasn't sure which one would be seen as more interesting/original. I know a little about reconstructive memories, something to do with false memories being created, and how an eyewitness isn't the same as a camera recording for evidence? Either way, I'll look into it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LDS16)
    Thank you for your help I was likely to do either Milgram or Skinner, I wasn't sure which one would be seen as more interesting/original. I know a little about reconstructive memories, something to do with false memories being created, and how an eyewitness isn't the same as a camera recording for evidence? Either way, I'll look into it
    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).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GattMariyibi)
    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).
    Thank you, just working through the summer task, and as the essay was for anything related to psychology ,I wanted it to be beneficial without it being too out-there and unrelated to the content. Apart from that it seems I have to find definitions such as the social learning theory and conditioning, which seem fairly familiar from Sociology & Biology GCSE
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Strength of agency theory


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.