Defining psychology: is it worth the trouble?
Henrique's thoughtful effort (this issue) to define psychology suffers from at least three shortcomings: (a) "psychology" is almost certainly an inherently fuzzy concept that resists precise definition; (b) attempts to define psychology are likely to hamper rather than foster consilience across scientific disciplines; and (c) Henriques incorrectly diagnoses the cause of the scientist-practitioner gap and hence offers an incorrect prescription. The sources of this gap lie not in intractable definitional disputes, but in fundamentally different approaches to acquiring knowledge.
Lilienfeld
Scott O
SO
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. slilien@emory.edu
D000818:Animals; D001519:Behavior; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D006801:Humans; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D019359:Knowledge; D010684:Philosophy; D011584:Psychology / Q000145:classification / Q000639:trends*; D011586:Psychology, Clinical / Q000145:classification / Q000639:trends