The that time e.g. electrical force, the

The that time e.g. electrical force, the

The writer of the article questions whether psychology can be unified, due to the fact that in the past decade a large literature emerged on the question of how psychology can be unified in a single coherent and rigorous framework in such a way that is similar to Isaac Newton’s Law that is unified under physics or biology “Darwin’s theory” which are common examples, it is intended that for the discipline psychology to be unified all psychologists would agree on the mental and behavioral fundamental elements only then progress can be seen in the case of natural selection which only do not produce a basic explanations and single framework for different aspects of study and are even now able to give reasons and explanations for unknown phenomenon or that were poorly understood as at that time e.g. electrical force, the development of antibiotic resistance which unifies the discipline even more (pg. 207).
There has been diverse proposal for unification with the writer asserting that psychology whether behavioristic, humanistic etc. is able to create a sub-discipline that can challenge other areas although it is unlikely not to succeed due to its obvious awareness and that what is needed is a theory or a formal language, formal language can cover areas that differ in content and structure, can also predict work and empowers a psychologist to attain the scope and information at the same time and other natural science that uses this method includes the Newton’s law of motion which entails the reason why everything that goes up must surely come down like throwing an apple up and it comes down, or a cannon ball etc. and has been able to extend to problems like fluid dynamics etc. the field of psychology at a particular point was known widely to argue that it was following Thomas Kuhn methods although inapplicable to psychology and Wilhelm Wundt who is the father of psychology from the 1860s rendered psychology scientific and the method succeeded in making physiology an experimental science which yielded the experimental psychology in Leipzig and attracted students from around the world and many of Wundt students especially the American’s took back his ideas which left many frustrated due to limitations of the view, (pg. 208) and sought again and expanded their mentalities on women, asylum patients etc. both within and out to cover a full version of mental variation pg. 209(Green, 2009), and it became known as Functionalism, by its outspoken opponents E.B Titchener, which in a way did not unify the field of psychology and in contrary, its fundamental values was letting more flowers bloom also G, Stanley Hall spoke about it in one of his articles 1894, behaviorist started about ten years later and was one of the first broad unifying field which was later lost and must be recovered one way or made better, likes of Watson, skinner etc. and some attempted to restructure the language of psychology and others the whole vocabulary in place of new ones (Tolman 1932), (Skinner, 1945) which hardly explains the compelling unity of force= mass x acceleration etc. some teachable monuments against behaviorism unification includes Gesell’s studies of childhood development, Ash’s studies of compliance, Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, they never depended on behaviorism, Behaviorism as a discipline was never part of Kuhnian paradigms although Kuhn’s model of scientific unification is part of how science develops and now of historical importance to other fields like the philosophers etc. (Dupre 1993; Hacking, 1996, Lakatos 1970, Laudan 1978) because history of psychology would probably never will be unified into a strong scientific field like in Natural science, an example looking at one of the topics of G. Stanley Halls in 1887, when he published the American journal of psychology, we can see that there was nothing in common either ontological, epistemological etc. (pg. 209), different journals were established Halls, James McKeen Cattell etc. huge areas were devoted to philosophical psychology and psychological metatheory but there weren’t any principle to guide these different areas.
Consciousness as recalled by William James (1904a, 1904b) calls it into question, although research of these era used the term to ward off others that argued, appealing to the term provided a broad area that many researchers could work on and later on wards the entire structure began to fail and behaviorism came out less than a decade later, in the early APA (American psychological association), internal conflicts reflected the difference in all their opinions over who really counts as a psychologists, although trained in philosophy, wanted to get rid of the philosophers, some wanted only researchers in the Lab as members and E.B Titchener wanted to enforce this rule and other independent associations of applied psychologists rose up (pg. 210). Many research journals were published, psychology was widely known, after been persecuted during the World War 1, it emerged in the 1920s and is known as the “outbreak of psychology”, new university departments journals and the public began to seek for counsel in their romantic lives, religions, sports, commercials etc. and yet all these did not unify the field, the term psychology was further established, the fast growing psychological tests, career, movements crossed the structures of behaviorism (Boring 1923), the outburst expansion of educational, clinical, industrial led to the psychologists outnumbering their universities beyond and they worked within the disciplinary languages to be better understood and were trusted by their clients and history continues but the aim is psychology as a discipline did not rise up from a well-formed set of scientific problems that were researched by small-like minded individuals, it has been a “hodge-podge” from its existence and unification has been nothing but unsuccessful, although history is known not to determine the destiny, it is not impossible that these different areas might be unified, The promise of scientific unification is to look for the problem, the question what might be the cause for a set of fact called “psychological” and it appears more reasonable to expect that these principles would attract the discipline psychology into a set of large “super-subdiscipline’ that are not anymore closer e.g. biology, sociology, economics etc. one of the “Aristotelian understanding of motion was growth” in the biology essence from seeds to plants (Aristotle, ca. 340bc/1996, pp.50; 198b/6-21) Growth for example is not captured in Newton’s Law of motion and so only exists within physics and so it appears it is not only the phenomenon that determines the success of theories and it can be vice versa, it proved that although growth in the failure of not been lightened in the Newton’s Law became a problem that eventually entered other areas of science where it can be addressed also similarly psychology unification seems as some areas may be unified due to some principles and may perhaps capture a wider area of the discipline. And considering how porous the discipline already is may result to partial unification of the discipline and may be the formation of new disciplines such situations would likely result to the fact that the current area of psychology would fail to “cut nature at its joint” and later some other areas might be unified under a set of separate rules than the first, it is unknown if these new sets would continue to call it psychology and the problems that are referred to are psychological might not be involved in these new discipline with the writer unsure of the future of psychology but imaginative in thoughts that there are other possibilities that are beyond psychology simply getting unified or unable to be unified as seen from the history of the discipline.
CONCLUSION: The science of unification has been proposed in Journals in the past proving that a school of thought or the other can expand its territories to all areas of psychology and is unlikely to excel, and the writer offers the idea that for a unification to be possible it has to be more unbiased, more rigorous like in the formal terms. The writer got through the history of psychology and discovered that over time in the different areas that arose in the American journal was not as a result of similar minded researchers but a work that was done out for the purpose of publication and institutional entrenchment, although there might be other reasons but they are not basis for unification, psychology at its stage currently is a fairly heterogenous group in that the ontological area is still not properly understood, in that we are handling a single object single handedly when it could have been more better to handle it as 2 or more kind and vice versa and a possible unification would enable us stabilize our concept, so the view on things would be clearer and referred to better and lastly history may have not supported the future possibilities of unification happening but we in a way can allow it come to us in stages, pieces and at the end we would see the result of the discipline “psychology”


I'm Natalie

You need a custom essay? I have some suggestions for you...

Check it out