By Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler and Dana C. Leighton, adapted by Marc Chao and Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim

Many people are surprised to learn that psychology is considered a science. While fields like astronomy, biology, and chemistry are widely accepted as scientific disciplines, psychology’s status as a science can seem less obvious. To understand why psychology is a science, it is helpful to first consider what astronomy, biology, and chemistry have in common.

At first glance, these sciences appear fundamentally different from one another. Astronomers study celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies. Biologists focus on living organisms, exploring everything from microscopic cells to complex ecosystems. Chemists, on the other hand, investigate the properties, composition, and interactions of matter. Even their tools and methods vary widely. A biologist might use a microscope to study cellular structures, an astronomer might rely on a radio telescope to scan distant galaxies, and a chemist might work with a spectrometer to analyse chemical compounds. The expertise required to operate these tools does not necessarily transfer between fields. For example, a chemist would likely be unfamiliar with the techniques used to track animal populations in the wild, just as a biologist might not know how to interpret radio signals from space.

Yet, despite their differences in subject matter and tools, these disciplines share something far more significant: a commitment to a common approach for acquiring knowledge. Science is not defined by what it studies, but rather by how it studies it. At its core, science is a systematic and evidence-based process of inquiry. It relies on careful observation, the development of testable hypotheses, controlled experimentation, and logical reasoning to draw conclusions. Through this method, scientists aim to reduce bias, ensure reproducibility, and arrive at reliable knowledge about the world.

This same approach applies to psychology. While psychology’s subject matter, which includes human behaviour, thoughts, and emotions, might seem less tangible or harder to measure than planets or chemical reactions, psychologists use the same principles of systematic observation, hypothesis testing, and logical analysis to uncover patterns and relationships. For example, a psychologist studying memory might design an experiment to test how distractions affect recall. They would carefully observe participants, collect data, and analyse the results statistically to determine if their hypothesis was supported.

It is also important to recognise that science is not just about gathering facts. It is about understanding the relationships between those facts, identifying patterns, and building theories to explain them. Scientific theories are not random guesses; they are well-substantiated explanations grounded in evidence and refined through repeated testing and observation. In psychology, theories such as Pavlov’s classical conditioning or Bandura’s social learning theory illustrate how empirical research leads to broader insights about behaviour and mental processes.

However, like all sciences, psychology faces challenges. Human behaviour is influenced by countless variables, including culture, biology, environment, and personal experience, making it more complex to study than chemical reactions in a controlled lab setting. Yet, this complexity does not diminish its scientific nature, it simply means that psychologists must be especially careful in their methods, often relying on large sample sizes, replication of studies, and statistical analysis to ensure their findings are valid and reliable.

Features of Science

The scientific approach is built on three fundamental features: systematic empiricism, empirical questions, and public knowledge. These elements collectively form the foundation of modern scientific inquiry, ensuring that knowledge is built on evidence, focused on answerable questions, and openly shared for verification and improvement.

Systematic Empiricism

Empiricism refers to gaining knowledge through observation, but science refines this process into systematic empiricism. Scientists do not rely on casual observations, gut feelings, or anecdotal evidence. Instead, they carefully design studies, control variables, and document their findings in detail to ensure that their observations are reliable and replicable.

Systematic empiricism involves planning observations in a way that reduces bias and error. Every step, from data collection to analysis, follows a structured process. This systematic approach allows scientists to distinguish genuine patterns from random noise and anecdotal coincidences.

For example, a study investigated whether women talk more than men, not by relying on cultural stereotypes or informal impressions, but by systematically recording conversations from a large, diverse sample of participants (Mehl et al., 2007). Their meticulous approach allowed the researchers to analyse the data objectively and confidently challenge existing assumptions. When their findings contradicted popular stereotypes, they trusted their systematic observations rather than cultural narratives.

Systematic empiricism also incorporates tools and technologies that enhance observation, from telescopes and microscopes to advanced statistical software. These tools extend the range and accuracy of what scientists can measure and observe, allowing them to uncover insights that would otherwise remain hidden.

While systematic empiricism is essential, it does not mean scientists dismiss creativity or intuition. In fact, intuition often inspires hypotheses, and creativity helps design innovative experiments. However, intuition alone is not enough, it must be tested against systematic observations. This commitment ensures that scientific conclusions are grounded in evidence rather than assumptions.

Empirical Questions

Science is focused on empirical questions, which are questions about how the world actually works. These are questions that can be answered through observation and measurement, and they are testable, verifiable, and often falsifiable, meaning they can potentially be proven wrong through evidence.

For instance, the question “Do women talk more than men?” is empirical because it can be answered by systematically observing and comparing speech patterns across genders. Scientists can collect data, analyse patterns, and draw conclusions based on the evidence. Similarly, questions like “Does a specific medication reduce anxiety?” or “How does sleep deprivation affect memory?” are empirical because they can be studied systematically.

However, not all questions are empirical, and science has clear boundaries. Questions about morality, aesthetics, or values, such as “Is it morally wrong to tell a lie?” or “What makes a painting beautiful?”, are not testable through scientific observation. While science can inform such discussions (e.g., studying the effects of lying on relationships or analysing brain activity when people view art), it cannot resolve them definitively.

Distinguishing between empirical and non-empirical questions is especially important in psychology, where issues of ethics, values, and subjective experience often intersect with scientific inquiry. Researchers must remain aware of these limits and ensure they do not overstep the boundaries of empirical investigation.

Empirical questions also highlight one of science’s core strengths: falsifiability. A scientific claim must be open to being proven wrong through evidence. If a claim cannot, in principle, be falsified, it falls outside the scope of science. This principle keeps scientific inquiry honest, focused, and transparent.

Public Knowledge

The third defining feature of science is its commitment to creating public knowledge. Science is not a private endeavour; it is a collaborative, global effort. Once scientists have asked empirical questions, conducted systematic observations, and drawn conclusions, they share their findings with others, typically through publications in peer-reviewed journals.

These scientific papers provide detailed accounts of the study’s rationale, methods, results, and conclusions. They allow other scientists to evaluate the research, replicate the findings, and build upon previous work. Increasingly, researchers are publishing in open-access journals, making their work freely available to the public and removing barriers to accessing scientific knowledge.

Public knowledge serves two critical functions:

1. Science as a Collaborative Process: Scientific progress is cumulative, built on the work of countless researchers across time and geography. Every study adds a piece to the larger puzzle of understanding the world. A groundbreaking discovery is rarely the result of one isolated study; rather, it emerges from a long history of shared knowledge and collective effort.
2. Self-Correction: Science is inherently self-correcting. Even with the best intentions, individual scientists can make mistakes, overlook biases, or draw incorrect conclusions. By publishing their work, they invite others to review, replicate, and, if necessary, challenge their findings. This process helps identify errors, refine methods, and strengthen the reliability of scientific knowledge over time.

A good example of the self-correcting nature of science is the Many Labs Replication Project. Researchers worldwide collaborated to replicate findings from several influential psychological studies. One of these studies, originally conducted by Schnall and colleagues, suggested that handwashing reduces moral judgements. However, replication attempts using larger samples and identical procedures failed to reproduce the original effect. While this does not conclusively disprove the initial finding, it highlights the importance of replication in verifying scientific claims.

The replication effort demonstrates that science is not about defending individual studies or researchers, it is about uncovering the truth through collective effort. The willingness to re-examine findings, refine methods, and adjust conclusions based on new evidence is what sets science apart from other ways of knowing.

The Interconnected Nature of the Three Features

These three features: systematic empiricism, empirical questions, and public knowledge, are deeply interconnected. Systematic empiricism ensures observations are reliable and unbiased. Empirical questions focus scientific efforts on issues that can be tested and measured. Public knowledge guarantees that findings are shared, evaluated, and refined by the broader scientific community.

Together, these features form the backbone of the scientific method, creating a self-correcting system that drives progress and deepens our understanding of the natural world. Whether studying galaxies, chemical reactions, or human behaviour, scientists rely on these principles to build a body of knowledge that is transparent, collaborative, and grounded in evidence.

In embracing these principles, psychology earns its place among the natural sciences. By adopting systematic empiricism, focusing on empirical questions, and contributing to public knowledge, psychology builds a robust and credible understanding of human thought, behaviour, and experience.

Science Versus Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience refers to a collection of beliefs, theories, or practices that claim to be scientific but fail to adhere to the essential principles of scientific inquiry, such as systematic observation, falsifiability, and peer review. At first glance, pseudoscience can appear strikingly similar to genuine science. It often uses complex, scientific-sounding terminology, references studies or research (whether real or fabricated), and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence to build its credibility. However, beneath the surface, pseudoscience lacks the foundational principles that define genuine scientific inquiry. Understanding the difference between science and pseudoscience is crucial, not only for academic purposes but also for making informed decisions in daily life.

Take the theory of biorhythms as an example. This theory suggests that our physical, intellectual, and emotional abilities follow fixed cycles: 23 days for physical abilities, 33 days for intellectual abilities, and 28 days for emotional abilities, which begin at birth and continue for life. Proponents argue that activities requiring peak performance, like exams or athletic competitions, should be scheduled during the “high points” of these cycles. Books, websites, and even mobile apps have been dedicated to tracking and optimising these cycles, often using terms like sinusoidal wave and bioelectricity to sound more scientific. However, despite the apparent sophistication of these claims, scientific evidence consistently fails to support the existence of biorhythms. Beneath the impressive jargon lies a lack of empirical evidence, systematic observation, or falsifiable hypotheses.

A claim, belief, or activity can be considered pseudoscientific if it presents itself as scientific while failing to meet one or more key features of science. These shortcomings typically manifest in three distinct ways:

1. Lack of Systematic Empiricism: Systematic empiricism involves carefully planned, recorded, and analysed observations. In science, researchers rely on these structured observations to test their hypotheses and generate evidence-based conclusions. Pseudoscience, however, often lacks this level of rigour. Claims might rely on anecdotal evidence, personal testimonials, or selective data that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence. Even when scientific studies exist, pseudoscientific proponents may misinterpret or cherry-pick findings to suit their narrative.
2. Absence of Public Knowledge: Science thrives on transparency. Findings are published in peer-reviewed journals, allowing other scientists to replicate experiments, scrutinise methods, and verify conclusions. Pseudoscience, by contrast, often lacks this openness. Claims may be made without any published research, or findings might be hidden from public scrutiny. Without open evaluation and replication, it is impossible to confirm the validity of the claims.
3. Failure to Address Empirical Questions: Science deals with empirical questions that can be tested through observation, experimentation, and measurement. Philosopher Karl Popper emphasised that scientific claims must be falsifiable. This means that there must be a way to prove them wrong if they are indeed false. For example, the claim that “women talk more than men” is falsifiable because systematic observations could support or refute it. In contrast, many pseudoscientific claims are designed to avoid falsifiability. For instance, believers in extrasensory perception (ESP) often argue that psychic powers fail under controlled observation because the powers are supposedly disrupted by scepticism or scrutiny. This creates an unfalsifiable claim that no possible observation can disprove it, rendering it unscientific.

The Implications of Pseudoscience

Understanding the difference between science and pseudoscience is not just an academic exercise. It has practical, real-world implications that affect decision-making, public health, and the credibility of scientific disciplines.

One important reason for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is that it clarifies the value of core scientific principles. Systematic observation, falsifiability, and peer review are not abstract concepts but are essential safeguards against misinformation, bias, and faulty reasoning. Studying pseudoscience helps highlight the importance of these principles and fosters a deeper appreciation for evidence-based knowledge.

Another critical consideration is the real-world consequences of pseudoscientific beliefs. These beliefs are not always harmless; they can lead to serious, sometimes life-threatening outcomes. For example, individuals suffering from critical illnesses may reject proven medical treatments in favour of pseudoscientific alternatives such as homeopathy, energy healing, or other unverified therapies. Such choices can delay essential medical care, worsen health outcomes, and, in extreme cases, prove fatal.

Pseudoscience is also particularly relevant to the field of psychology. Many pseudoscientific practices overlap with psychological topics, claiming to explain human behaviour, cognition, and emotion. Examples include astrology, graphology (handwriting analysis), and past-life regression therapy. While these practices often appeal to people searching for answers about themselves, they lack the empirical evidence and methodological rigour required of genuine scientific disciplines. For students and professionals in psychology, the ability to distinguish credible scientific findings from pseudoscientific claims is essential for preserving the field’s integrity and ensuring that psychological knowledge remains reliable and evidence-based.

Identifying Pseudoscience

Identifying pseudoscience requires a critical mindset and a solid understanding of scientific reasoning. When evaluating a claim, it is essential to ask whether there is systematic evidence supporting it, if the findings have been published and peer-reviewed, and whether the claim is falsifiable, meaning it can be tested and potentially disproven. Additionally, it is important to consider whether contradictory findings are acknowledged and addressed. If the answers to these questions are unclear or unsatisfactory, there is a strong chance the claim falls into the category of pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience often presents itself in familiar forms, blending cultural beliefs, anecdotal evidence, and scientific-sounding terminology to appear credible. Astrology, for instance, claims that celestial bodies influence human personality and fate, while graphology suggests that handwriting can reveal personality traits. Similarly, practices like energy healing propose that physical and emotional ailments can be cured through the manipulation of unseen energy fields, and magnet therapy asserts that magnets can alleviate pain and improve overall health. Despite their popularity, these fields fail to meet the core principles of scientific inquiry, such as systematic empiricism, falsifiability, and transparency through public knowledge.

For those who want to deepen their understanding of pseudoscience and sharpen their critical thinking skills, several valuable resources are available. The Skeptic’s Dictionary offers an extensive reference guide to pseudoscientific beliefs, covering topics like cryptozoology, homeopathy, and pyramidology.

References

Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S, Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317(5834), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139940