Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
So, just as the concept of Right has to have Wrong as its counterpart to be a truth, so does theory need evidence. Science is a method of understanding, it is an understanding of what exists, what we can determine that we know about these things, and the method by which we go about achieving that understanding. Thus, without evidence on either side of the theory, there can be no support for the theory therefore making that theory non-scientific.
The evaluation of a theory is the identification of the type of theory it is. Much like theories themselves that set out a parameter of evaluation of a measurable prediction about a particular behavior or set of behaviors, theory evaluation is the determination of the validity, structure, and use of the theory itself. Theories have two dimensions: parasitical (its reliance on other theories) and operationalizable (interpretations of the theory). The less parasitical and less operationalizable the theory, the less reliable it is. This means that if a theory does not employ other existing and not disproven theories as its foundation, it has a weaker basis.. So, if I build my theory upon the foundation of other not-proven theories, it will have a stronger foundation....
If there is only one way of looking at a theory, only one interpretation, then it is much weaker for that lack of operationalizability. Thus, if I have a theory that people diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (a disorder that has been theorized, evidence has been found, and has been since classified and codified) are more likely to get into car accidents than people without ADD, I have all existing cognitive theory regarding mental function and ADD, all theory of physics and hand-eye coordination as well on my side. In terms of interpretation, we can see this from a variety of angles.
The field of psychology requires a very stringent theoretical approach. Because mental health is a field that has less measurable objects than other sciences, it requires a more stringent approach to its theoretical design. Scientific Psychology requires an understanding of Monism in the mind/body study, of non-conscious behavioral control, the belief that people are variable yet predictable, and that evolution is central to the development of humanity. These aspects are what mark psychology as a science rather than a folk concept.
Once again, time is an indicator. When a significant amount of evidence for a theory is readily available, the theory tends to be older and concomitantly more accepted by the scientific community. If there are significant gaps in the evidence, the theory can benefit from further investigation. The same is true of the complexity level of the theory is not very high. More components can then be added by further
The Role of Theory in Research: Defining and Understanding TheoriesThe purpose of this paper is to provide a discussion concerning the role of theory in research, including defining a theory and how they are used in psychology. Finally, the paper identifies three characteristics of a useful theory and examines how theories further science, followed by a brief summary in the conclusion.Review and DiscussionFrom a broad perspective, people have always used
Bayes Probability Can Bayes Confirmation Theory Give an Adequate Explanation for Confirmation of Scientific Theories? Theorizing in science is a complex and time-consuming undertaking. The theorist uses collected evidence from some means of scientific inquiry to project a generalized case. However, there is a difficulty with this process. There is some amount of probability that the theory will be wrong. Even if this is not a harmful outcome, it is difficult for
PSYCHOLOGY as a SCIENCE Psychology is a relatively new field of science as opposed to the natural sciences because it was born out of the spirit of humanism after the Renaissance (Hergenhahn, 108). As a result, methods and norms in the field are still being developed. In addition, the subject matter of the field includes the mind, personality and other intangible entities that cannot be subjected to the same kind of
The Rorschach test is comparatively less useful in the context of understanding ordinary psychological differences among individuals within the normal range of behavior, but may contribute more directly to identifying various organic psychological dysfunctions related to biochemical processes. Because of its subjective nature, (both in terms of the test itself as well as with respect to its analysis), it is not particularly well- regarded or widely used within the overall
psychology, it has intended to be a branch of the sciences. For it to be considered science, psychology must not hypothesize without testing. It is unfortunate that the history of psychology is marked with failed hypothesis. For it to be ethical, it has to draw conclusions after a formal laboratory experiment with stringent protocol instead of retrospective studies that result from past occurrences. Science share basic procedures and expectations, it