Should psychology follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences? Introduction to the debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This debate issue centers on the question of whether psychology should follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences. Answers to this question are often implicitly assumed but rarely explicitly debated among psychologists. This issue contains eight invited contributions by scholars whom we anticipated would have strong and divergent positions on the question. The articles present a broad range of perspectives, ranging from phenomenological psychology to cognitive neuroscience. They broadly line up with a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, four authors favoring a “yes” and four authors a “no” response, although nearly all authors advance more nuanced positions that challenge a simple classification. In this introduction, we first discuss the historical roots of the question and our motivation behind this specific formulation of it. Then we briefly summarize the contributions and place them in a broader context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".