Related Experiment Videos
Defining psychology: is it worth the trouble?
1Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. slilien@emory.edu
Journal of Clinical Psychology
|October 8, 2004
Summary
Defining psychology is inherently fuzzy and resists precise definition. Attempts to define it may hinder scientific consilience, and the scientist-practitioner gap stems from differing knowledge acquisition methods, not definitional disputes.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Philosophy of Science
- Interdisciplinary Studies
Background:
- Critiques of attempts to precisely define psychology.
- Analysis of the concept of consilience across scientific disciplines.
- Examination of the scientist-practitioner gap in psychology.
Discussion:
- The inherent ambiguity of the concept 'psychology' challenges precise definition.
- Defining psychology may impede, rather than promote, interdisciplinary consilience.
- The scientist-practitioner gap is misattributed to definitional issues.
Key Insights:
- 'Psychology' is an inherently fuzzy concept, resisting definitive boundaries.
- Efforts to define psychology can obstruct scientific consilience.
- The scientist-practitioner gap arises from divergent knowledge acquisition approaches.
Outlook:
- Re-evaluating the necessity of a singular, precise definition for psychology.
- Exploring alternative frameworks to foster consilience despite conceptual ambiguity.
- Addressing the scientist-practitioner gap by acknowledging and bridging different epistemological approaches.