Stephen Robinson has been a busy publisher this year on Amazon at least. Stephen describes how he one day found himself with a degree in BSc Psychology, and a job packing Gingerbread men in a factory. After the weeks turned into months, and months turned into years he bit the bullet. Stephen’s passion for writing took over and he decided this is what he wanted to pursue. His latest work “Can Psychology be Considered a Mature Science?” captured my eye and I read it with interest. This is the sort of question that we like to read about. The arm chair majority all have opinions about this already and I would suspect that the general answer would be no or maybe depending upon where in the world one is and how old the one answering is.
As a non psychologist scientist I have no particular axe to grind but I enjoyed the discussion presented in this essay. It seemed to me that the argument as to the maturity of this science was based heavily on a single definition of science. Whereas in most sciences there exist divisions and disagreements, the important factor seems to be the ability to generate theory and subject it to objective criticism and eventually to use theory to predict outcomes or otherwise produce useful results. It seems to me that this aspect could be taken into the discussion with useful consequence.
As a scientist myself, being trained up to various chemistry degrees, I can see the general pomposity of the scientific community shunning the likes of psychology into a pseudo science genre. History though does not support this strength of feeling as the sciences we know today are relatively modern and going way back when to Aristotle and before you could be forgiven for a very different view of what was science and what was not.
Stephen writes a good book, I do not necessarily agree with the outcome, but that is fine, is it not?