The problem driving this debate issue is old, going back to at least to the 17th century. Yet, psychologists are no closer to solving the problem now than they were centuries ago. In this article I argue that the reason for the lack of definitive solution is that disputants share assumptions that make the problem unsolvable. More specifically, the problem is based on the assumptions that (a) the knowledge field of psychology is coherent and (b) natural scientists employ a common inquiry approach. Both are troublesome. As such, instead of asking questions such as “Should psychologists follow the natural sciences?” it would be much more meaningful to ask questions such as “What does it look like for psychologists in this subfield to follow a scientific approach?”
AbelR. (1976). Man is the measure: A cordial invitation to the central problems of philosophy. Free Press.
2.
AdamsG. (1931). Psychology: Science or superstition?Covici Friede.
3.
AhoT. (2009). The status of psychology as understood by sixteenth-century scholastics. In HeinämaaS.ReuterM. (Eds.), Psychology and philosophy: Inquiries into the soul from late scholasticism to contemporary thought (pp. 47–66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8582-6_3
BarresiJ.MartinR. (2000). Naturalization of the soul: Self and personal identity in the eighteenth century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203026700
8.
BauerH. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. University of Illinois Press.
9.
BoothW. C.ColombG. G.WilliamsJ. M.BizupJ.FitzGeraldW. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
10.
BransenJ. (2001). Verstehen and erklären, philosophy of. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 16165–16170). Elsevier.
11.
BungeM. (1983a). Treatise on basic philosophy: Vol. 5. Epistemology & methodology I: Exploring the world. D. Reidel.
12.
BungeM. (1983b). Treatise on basic philosophy: Vol. 6. Epistemology & methodology II: Understanding the world. D. Reidel.
13.
BungeM. (1985). From mindless neuroscience and brainless psychology to neuropsychology. In MadsenK. B.MosL. P. (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 115–133). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_7
14.
BungeM. (2003). Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. University of Toronto Press.
CattellR. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. World Book.
18.
ChalmersA. F. (1990). Science and its fabrication. University of Minnesota Press.
19.
ChalmersA. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). Hackett Publishing.
20.
ChangH. (2016). Scientific realism and chemistry. In ScerriE.FisherG. (Eds.), Essays in the philosophy of chemistry (pp. 234–252). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190494599.003.0018
21.
CollingwoodR. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
22.
CollinsH. M.LabingerJ. A. (Eds.). (2010). The one culture? A conversation about science. University of Chicago Press.
23.
de CaritatJ.-A.-N.de CondorcetM. (1787). Discours prononcé le 21 Février 1782; Par M. le Marquis de Condorcet, lorsqu’il fut reću à la place de M. Saurin [Speech delivered on February 21, 1782; By Mr. Marquis de Condorcet, when he was received in place of Mr. Saurin]. In Recueil des harangues prononcées par messieurs de l’Academie Françoise, dans leurs réceptions & en d’autres occasions, depms l’établissement de l’Académie jusqu’à présent, tome huitieme: 1775–1782 (pp. 413–449). Libraire de l’Academie Françoise.
DemeterT.LángB.SchmalD. (2022). Scientia in the Renaissance, concept of. In SgarbiM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Renaissance philosophy (pp. 2942–2956). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_266-2
DiltheyW. (1976). Ideas about a descriptive and analytical psychology. In RickmanH. P. (Ed. & Trans.), W. Dilthey: Selected writings (pp. 88–97). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1894)
28.
DoyleC. L. (2000). Psychology: Definition. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 374–376). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10521-125
29.
DrawsonA. S.ToombsE.MushquashC. J. (2017). Indigenous research methods: A systematic review. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.5
30.
EkmanP. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. Times Books / Henry Holt.
31.
FleckL. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (BradleyF. & TrennT. J., Trans.; TrennT. J.MertonR. K., Eds.). University of Chicago Press.
32.
FrançoisA. (2008). Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In VanhoveM. (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 163–215). John Benjamins.
33.
GiorgiA. (1985). Toward the articulation of psychology as a coherent discipline. In KochS.LearyD. E. (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 46–59). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10117-022
34.
GjertsenD. (1989). Science and philosophy: Past and present. Viking Penguin.
35.
GoodsteinD. (2011). How science works. In KassirerJ.KesslerP. G.ChinM. W.NewmanP.O’ MalleyK. M.RakoffJ. S.RobertsonC. R.RodricksJ. V.WilcoxA.ZabelS. L. (Eds.), Reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd ed., pp. 37–54). National Academies.
36.
GreggA.BarnardC. I.CarmichaelL.FrenchT. M.HunterW. S.ThurstoneL. L.BronkD. W.DollardJ.HilgardE. R.ThorndikeE. L.WhitehornJ. C.YerkesR. M. (1970). The place of psychology in an ideal university: The report of the University Commission to advise on the future of psychology at Harvard. American Psychologist, 25(5), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029489
HackerP. M. S. (2009). Agential reasons and the explanation of human behaviour. In SandisC. (Ed.), New essays on the explanation of action (pp. 75–93). Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
HaigB. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world. MIT Press.
HatfieldG. (1995). Remaking the science of mind: Psychology as a natural science. In FoxC.PorterR.WoklerR. (Eds.), Inventing human science: Eighteenth century domains (pp. 184–231). University of California Press.
42.
HatfieldG. (2003). Psychology old and new. In BaldwinT. (Ed.), Cambridge history of philosophy, 1870–1945 (pp. 93–106). Cambridge University Press.
43.
HenleyT. B.JohnsonM. G.JonesE. M.HerzogH. A. (1989). Definitions of psychology. The Psychological Record, 39(1), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395058
44.
HenriquesG.MichalskiJ. (2020). Defining behavior and its relationship to the science of psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(2), 328–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09504-4
HibbardS.HenleyT. (1994). Is psychology really “the study of behavior”? A conceptual analysis of “behavior” and some recommendations on the use of “behavior” in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 4(4), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394044006
KennyA. (1984). The legacy of Wittgenstein. Blackwell.
51.
KochS. (1976). Language communities, search cells, and the psychological studies. In ArnoldW. J. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1975: Conceptual foundations of psychology (pp. 477–559). University of Nebraska Press.
52.
KochS. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science”. American Psychologist, 36(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.257
LaBarK. S. (2016). Fear and anxiety. In BarrettL. F.LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 751–773). Guilford.
56.
LamiellJ. T.SlaneyK. L. (Eds.). (2020). Problematic research practices and inertia in scientific psychology: History, sources, and recommended solutions. Routledge.
57.
LeaheyT. H. (2004). Mind as scientific object: An historical, philosophical exploration. In ErnelingC. E. (Ed.), The mind as a scientific object: Between brain and culture (pp. 35–78). Oxford University Press.
58.
LeaheyT. H. (2017). A history of psychology: From antiquity to modernity (8th ed.). Routledge.
59.
LeeV. L. (1994). Organisms, things done, and the fragmentation of psychology. Behavior and Philosophy, 22(2), 7–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759316
60.
LippO. V. (2006). Human fear learning: Contemporary procedures and measurement. In CraskeM. G.HermansD.VansteenwegenD. (Eds.), Fear and learning: From basic processes to clinical implications (pp. 37–51). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11474-002
61.
LovieS. (1983). Images of man in early factor analysis—Psychological and philosophical aspects. In BemS.RappardH.van HoornW. (Eds.), Studies in the history of psychology and the social sciences: Proceedings of the first European meeting of CHEIRON International Society for the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences held at Amsterdam (F.U.), September 15–17, 1982 (pp. 265–247). Leiden University.
62.
LuccioR. (2013). Psychologia—The birth of a new scientific context. Review of Psychology, 20(1–2), 5–14. https://hrcak.srce.hr/116334
63.
MacDonaldP. S. (2003). History of the concept of mind: Vol. 1. Speculations about soul, mind and spirit from Homer to Hume. Routledge.
MayerV. J.ArmstrongR. E.BarrowL. H.BrownS. M.CrowderJ. N.FortnerR. W.GrahamM.HoytW. H.HumphrisS. E.JaxD. W.ShayE. L.ShropshireK. L. (1992). The role of planet Earth in the new science curriculum. Journal of Geological Education, 40(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.66
66.
McAllisterJ. W. (2002). Historical and structural approaches in the natural and human sciences. In TindemansP. A. J.Verrijn-StuartA. A.VisserR. P. W. (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities: Four analytical essays and a critical debate on the future of scholastic endeavor (pp. 19–54). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048503667-003
67.
NaugleD. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Eerdmans.
OatesJ.CarpenterD.FisherM.GoodsonS.HannahB.KwiatkowskiR.PruttonK.ReevesD.WainwrightT. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. British Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsrep.2021.inf180
70.
PerlerD. (2018). Mind and method. In SchmidS. (Ed.), History of the philosophy of mind: Vol. 3. Philosophy of mind in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance (pp. 22–40). Routledge.
71.
PsillosS. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge.
RateC. R. (2010). Defining the features of courage: A search for meaning. In PuryC. L. S.LopezS. J. (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 47–66). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12168-003
76.
RiccardiA. (1977). Geología: Protociencia, especulación o ciencia? [Geology: Protoscience, speculation or science?]. Revista de la Asociacion Geologica Argentina, 32, 52–69.
RychlakJ. F. (1990). Technical problems with teleological explanation in psychopathology: Sigmund Freud as a case in point. In SpitzerM.MaherB. A. (Eds.), Philosophy and psychopathology (pp. 102–117). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9028-2_8
80.
SalayL. D.IshikoN.HubermanA. D. (2018). A midline thalamic circuit determines reactions to visual threat. Nature, 557(7704), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0078-2
StaatsA. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.3
85.
StanfordP. K. (2016). Instrumentalism: Global, local, and scientific. In HumphreysP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science (pp. 318–336). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199368815.013.19
ToulminS. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
88.
TrustedJ. (1987). Inquiry and understanding: An introduction to explanation in the physical and human sciences. Macmillan Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18823-9
89.
UdehnL. (2001). Methodological individualism: Background, history and meaning. Routledge.
90.
VidalF. (2006). The “prehistory” of psychology: Thoughts on a historiographical illusion. Physis; Rivista Internazionale di Storia Della Scienza, 43(1–2), 31–59.
91.
VidalF. (2011). The sciences of the soul: The early modern origins of psychology (BrownS., Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
92.
VidalF. (2020). Psychology in the early modern period. In JalobeanuD.WolfeC. T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of early modern philosophy and the sciences (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_390-1
93.
von WrightG. H. (1963). The varieties of goodness. The Humanities Press.
WestlandG. (1978). Current crises of psychology. Heinemann Educational Books.
96.
WierzbickaA. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford University Press.
97.
WundtW. (2013). Psychology’s struggle for existence (LamiellJ., Trans.). History of Psychology, 16(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032319 (Original work published 1913)
