Our authors 
Contact us
Allakhverdov V. M. (2018). Psychology as a science and the demarcation problem (article 1)

<< To the contents of the issue

JournalMethodology and History of Psychology Year2018 Issue1 Pages46–57
SectionSubject Foundations of Worlds Construction TypeScientific article DOI10.7868/S1819265318010041
CitationAllakhverdov V. M. (2018). Psihologiâ kak nauka i problema demarkacii (stat'â pervaâ) [Psychology as a science and the demarcation problem (article 1)] // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Iss. 1. P. 46–57.

Psychology as a Science and the Demarcation Problem
(article 1)

The demarcation problem that allows to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific knowledge is severe in psychology now. This article discusses why it is impossible for science to be tantamount to truth. Moreover, the author argues that it is impossible to identify the only one criterion of cognitive activity effectiveness. The article describes and analyzes different variants of the demarcation criterion (scientific knowledge is only empirical knowledge, only consistent knowledge, only applicable knowledge). All those approaches play key roles in assessing science. However, it is not enough to draw a demarcation line between science and non-science (pseudoscience, junk science). But science can be measured through these criteria. The author tests psychology against these criteria. The next article continues this idea and proposes other understandings of the demarcation criterion.

Keywords: science; psychology; truth; obviousness; consistency; empirics; effectiveness

  • Allakhverdov V. M. (1993). Opyt teoretičeskoj psihologii (v žanre naučnoj revolûcii) [An Essay in Theoretical Psychology (in the Genre of Scientific Revolution)]. Saint Petersburg: Pečatnyj dvor.
  • Allakhverdov V. M. (2009). Razmyšlenie o nauke psihologii s vosklicatel'nym znakom [Reflections on the Science of Psychology with an Exclamation Point]. Saint Petersburg: Format.
  • Allakhverdov V. M. (2017). Soznanie i problema svobody voli [Consciousness and the problem of free will] // Žurnal vysšej nervnoj deâtel'nosti. 2017. Vol. 67. N 6. P. 734–738.
  • Barker R. (1969). Wanted: An eco-behavioral science // Naturalistic Viewpoints in Psychological Research / Ed. by E. Willems & H. Rausch. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Dean G., Kelly I. W. (2003). Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi? // Journal of Consciousness Studies. N 10. P. 175–198.
  • Feynman R., Leighton R., Sands M. (1966). Fejnmanovskie lekcii po fizike [The Feynman Lectures on Physics]. Vol. 3. Moscow: Mir.
  • Grinder J., Bandler R. (1992). Iz lâgušek v princy [Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming]. Saint Petersburg: Al'vis.
  • Heisenberg W. (1987). Šagi za gorizont [Across the Frontiers]. Moscow: Progress.
  • Leontiev A. N. (1966). Ponâtie otraženiâ i ego značenie dlâ psihologii [The concept of reflection and its significance for psychology] // Voprosy filosofii. N 12. P. 48–56.
  • Mazilov V. A. (2004). Steny i mosty: metodologiâ psihologičeskoj nauki [Walls and Bridges: Methodology of Psychological Science]. Yaroslavl: MAPN.
  • Polanyi M. (1985). Ličnostnoe znanie [Personal Knowledge]. Moscow: Progress.
  • Russell B. (2001a). Istoriâ zapadnoj filosofii [A History of Western Philosophy]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskoe universitetskoe izdatel'stvo.
  • Russell B. (2001b). Čelovečeskoe poznanie, ego sfera i granicy [Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits]. Moscow: Nika-Centr; Institut obŝegumanitarnyh issledovanij.
  • Tikhomirov O. K. (1995). K. Popper i psihologiâ [K. Popper and psychology] // Voprosy psihologii. N 4. P. 116–129.
  • Vavilov S. I. (1961). Isaak N'ûton [Isaac Newton]. Moscow: Nauka.
  • Wigner E. (1971). Nepostižimaâ èffektivnost' matematiki v estestvennyh naukah [The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences] // Ètûdy o simmetrii [Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays]. Moscow: Mir.
  • Yurevich A. V. (2008). Problema obʺâsneniâ v psihologii [The problem of explanation in psychology] // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Iss. 1. P. 74–87.
  • Zinchenko V. P. (2004). Istoričeskij ili psihologičeskij krizis? [Historical or psychological crisis?] // Voprosy psihologii. N 3. P. 86–89.

| Версия для печати |
© 2022 Methodology and History of Psychology