Psychology.docx

International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM), 2021

We live in the age of "Science" and are overwhelmed by its impact on our lives. evolution of mankind was hastened by science to the extent that humans are saved from being extinct unlike other species more powerful than us-dinosaurs and like. What else other than Science saved us from getting wiped out from the earth in the current pandemic times when Corona was out to obliterate the human race. Humans are blessed with the power of thinking and the capability of thinking evolved science. However same thinking power is giving rise to fields of studies that resemble science but are not science in the real sense. These get categorized as "Pseudoscience" This paper explores details of the two terms-Science‖ and-Pseudoscience‖ and explains their meaning and the similarity and distinction between them.

The distinction between science and pseudoscience has continued to be a subject of heated debate among philosophers of science. Most have focused on the development of a demarcation principle that allows for a distinction to be made, while others have rejected the concept of a demarcation principle altogether. In either case, there does seem to be a consensus among philosophers of science that distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is a fundamental obstacle, and that such a distinction holds substantial political and ethical implications. In what follows, I will present several formulations of the demarcation principle and critically analyse the proponents and limitations of these various formulations. From the discussion that follows, I hope to evince the proposition that there does not exist necessary and sufficient criteria by which one can definitively distinguish all of science from all of pseudoscience.

An overview of some the issues, with particualrl focus on Popper and on James Ladyman's characterisation of pseudoscience in terms of bullshit.

This study developed the Belief in Myths of Psychology Scale (BiMPS), a 50-item measure that consists of psychological myths and examined its psychometric properties in three studies. In Study 1, 774 students from Austria completed the BiMPS along with measures of superstitious beliefs, the Big Five personality factors, and interest in science. Results showed that an overall score computed from all 50 myths showed good internal consistency and facets of validity. In a sample of British university students, Study 2 showed that altering the anchoring of some items did not alter responses to the BiMPS. Finally, the results of Study 3 showed that enrolment on an introductory psychology module reduced belief in myths of psychology among a British university sample.

Precision Nanomedicine, 2022

Science publishing has many problems today. Some of them are caused by external factors, such as the computer and internet revolution. Others are because of the publication explosion and the resulting imbalance between the interests of science, authors, institutions, and the publishing business. However, these pains are part of the overall growth, nothing more. Society needs science more than ever, but progress cannot be made without reliable communication in publications. Publications are not science; they are yesterday’s information and knowledge, which are organized, stored, and shared on various media. It is important to understand actual problems with publications and consider what you can do.

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology

Problemification: Efendic and Van Zyl (2019) argue for following open access-based principles in IO psychology following the recent crises in psychological research. Among others, these refer to the failure to replicate empirical studies which cast doubt on the trustworthiness of what we believe to be psychological knowledge. However, saving knowledge is not the issue at stake: focusing on transparency and compliance to standards might solve some problems but not all.Implications: The crisis focuses our attention on what science is and particularly science in psychology and its related disciplines. Both the scientist–practitioner model of training psychologists and the quantitative–qualitative methods polarity reveal the influence of the received or positivistic view of science as characterised by quantification and measurement. Postmodern resistance to positivism feeds these polarities and conceals the true nature of psychological science.Purpose: This article argues for a realist ...

Data indicate that large percentages of the general public regard psychology's scientific status with considerable skepticism. I examine 6 criticisms commonly directed at the scientific basis of psychology (e.g., psychology is merely common sense, psychology does not use scientific methods, psychology is not useful to society) and offer 6 rebuttals. I then address 8 potential sources of public skepticism toward psychology and argue that although some of these sources reflect cognitive errors (e.g., hindsight bias) or misunderstandings of psychological science (e.g., failure to distinguish basic from applied research), others (e.g., psychology's failure to police itself, psychology's problematic public face) reflect the failure of professional psychology to get its own house in order. I offer several individual and institutional recommendations for enhancing psychology's image and contend that public skepticism toward psychology may, paradoxically, be one of our field's strongest allies.

Theory & Psychology, 1992

There is, unfortunately, a large vestigial heritage of positivist errors, and distortions of positivist errors, concerning the nature of science that still permeate psychology. This article contributes to contemporary debates concerning the metascience of psychology not by proposing a positive program of scientific norms and values, but by addressing and countering a number of these errors, these residual myths, concerning the nature of science.