One of the most salient measures that a psychologist can take is to base all of his work, and particularly his or her conclusions or findings, in the methodology befitting of true psychological and scientific processes. This means utilizing empirical evidence and evidence-based practices to substantiate findings before publicizing any sorts of claims surrounding their implications. This sort of testing (which author Scott Lillenfeld wrote the public believes is missing from psychology) (No author, 2012) is the key distinguishing factor between any science and a pseudoscience, and psychologists should actively pursue this type of testing before anything regarding to a particular study or treatment is revealed to the public. The worst thing a contemporary or even future psychologist can do to aid the derisive viewpoint of psychology that is largely conceived of by the public is to forsake scientific methodology and publish treatments or findings before...
This Nicolosi article quotes a senior member of the APA, who asserted, "When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise,' he explained. If psychology speaks out on every social issue, 'very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization -- just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting.'" (Nicolosi, p. 1) Quite indeed, the biggest challenge facing psychology's credibility
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