This is one example of a falsifiable -- indeed, a falsified -- psychological theory. Many aspects of Freudian psychology have raised serious objections since Freud first advanced them, and in this instance the observations did not fit the logic of his seduction theory, so the theory was abandoned. It was logically proven to be incorrect -- or falsified. McNally also points out that falsifiability should in now way be considered the only, or even the primary, indicator of pseudoscience, as many pseudoscientific claims -- such as the belief in a flat Earth -- are logically falsifiable, which might make them seem scientific (McNally, 2003). Thus, psychologists and other practitioners of psychology must make sure that their theories are not only falsifiable, but they also need to make sure that they are built on logical deductions from repeated observations. A lack of falsifiability also does not render a theory completely useless, though it does make it somewhat less scientific. One example of a psychological theory that is not falsifiable is Freud's description of the id, ego, and superego (Peter, 2007). Though these concepts provide a very useful model that accurately predicts much in the way of human behavior, there is no objective or logical way to prove or disprove the existence of these three human phenomena. Popper explains how such things can still be scientifically useful by saying that they "only appear in the highest level of universality...[and are] established by the fact that we know in what logical relation other...
Empirically speaking, the concepts of the id, ego, and superego are not verifiable or falsifiable, but this does not render them wholly useless. There are necessarily subjective interpretations in all branches of the human sciences, perhaps most especially in psychology. Though continuous adjustment of theories rather than an outright rejection of them is not scientifically advisable given repeated observations that refute said theories, there is not a large amount of basic knowledge and theories in the field of that are directly empirically verifiable, so as long as they are not completely and repeatedly falsifiable these theories are still useful.
However, psychology, even scientific psychology, presents falsifiability challenges not evident in the natural scientists. Some scientists might argue that Freud has been shown to be a poor theorist, given what has been revealed about the brain since Popper's day. If a depressive shows no improvement after years of Freudian therapy, but does show improvement after taking Prozac, that could be said to prove Freud wrong. Unfortunately, so many other external
Steps in Content Analysis: There are ten steps in content analysis including: (1) copying and reading the transcript and making notes where pertinent information is located: (2) reviewing notes and making a list of the various information types located; (3) reading the list and categorizing each item and providing a description for what information has been identified; (4) identification of whether the categories are potentially linked and then listing the
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
Karl Popper and Falsification Karl Popper's Nontraditional Views on Science: Is Falsification Correct? Falsification, also called refutability, is the logical possibility that an assertion, hypothesis, or theory can be contradicted by an observation made or by the outcome of a physical experiment. Made popular by philosopher of science, Karl Popper, falsification provided a method in which scientists start with a current scientific theory and use the usual methods of deductive reasoning to
Knowledge and truth were considered absolute and immutable by these two, though for very different reasons, which is the complete antithesis to the empirical theories of Popper, Peirce, Kuhn, and James. The progression of knowledge in the face of such certainty could only result in pure growth from previously established claims, as no truth could ever be said to exist that was not thoroughly and absolutely proved by careful
Karl Popper's Proposed Solution To The Demarcation Problem: Popper vs. Kuhn According to the philosopher Karl Popper, "the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms 'non-science'" (Thornton 2009). Colloquially, of course, all of us think we know what science is -- it is the scientific method, or the proving of a hypothesis. But even here there is confusion, given
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now