Psychology is incorrect

Every famous psychologist has been wrong about something!
This is normal in science: most scientific ideas do not stand the test of time. In many cases, the incorrect ideas were still very useful in their time, but we have nevertheless moved on from most of them. For example, the claims of psychoanalysis were incorrect, but, historically, they resulted in far more humane treatment of mentally ill patients than what came before them. Some forms of incorrect can be a useful improvement over previous forms of incorrect, even though they still turn out to be incorrect in the long run.

Contemporary psychologists are also going to be wrong!
Most "theories" in psychology cannot be properly described as scientific theories: most "theories" in psychology are post hoc stories describing data, not falsifiable frameworks that predict novel results. Nevertheless, as with the past, various innovations and clinical applications are more useful than what was previously available. Even so, we should remain humble as most of our theories are going to be shown to be incorrect. That is how science works.

That isn't to say everyone was wrong all the time.
Various psychologists have been correct about specific ideas. For example, B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning has stood the test of time. Operant conditioning has a much more limited scope than Skinner would have believed, but the idea itself was not incorrect.

Don't allow yourself to get stuck on the past or on people who were incorrect.
If you can hold yourself to a high standard of integrity and focus on high-quality research, you'll end up being less incorrect than your peers. You can be one of the researchers that helps us move science forward.

In psychology, "facts" are provisional

In a field as young as psychology, "facts" change quite quickly.
The Replication Crisis should shed light on how we don't actually know what we once thought we knew. An undergrad degree in psychology should help you think critically, but don't think of the content taught in undergraduate courses as "true" or as "facts" that will stand the test of time. The exceptions are methods and statistics courses; those are generally correct as they teach tools, not information. In contrast, any course where you learned the results of studies should be treated tentatively and provisionally.

It might seem disheartening, but you're probably better off viewing most of the "facts" taught during an undergrad degree in psychology with a much greater degree of skepticism, relegating them to the domain of "hypothetical" rather than the domain of "fact". A healthy skepticism can prevent you from propagating incorrect ideas at dinner parties or in casual conversation. This is doubly relevant when you remember that generalization doesn't run backwards: most findings may provisionally apply to the population as a whole, but they don't automatically apply to individual people!

Psychology and other fields

Consider psychology.
Something that was a "fact" five years ago is bogus today. Something that was "fact" fifty years ago seems trivially silly! There are a few ideas that remain viable from years long past, but most of psychology was and is inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong: it was valuable that people did the work because it got us to where we are today! Today's work is valuable because it will get us to tomorrow! Eventually, psychology will have some stable "facts", but we don't have many today. As it stands, if you learn "facts" in undergraduate psychology today, by the end of a four or five year degree, many of those "facts" are going to be obsolete or even debunked.

Consider physics.
Physics used to be like psychology, with changing facts every few decades. Then, "facts" in physics slowed, changing over the centuries rather than decades. Nowadays, many "facts" of physics have largely stabilized into a standard model of physics that has a lot of explanatory power.

Physics still has open questions and more precise tools may yet change cutting-edge ideas in physics. Still, we can recognize mutability at the most advanced frontiers while also appreciating that many "facts" in physics have remained relatively unchanging for hundreds of years and will likely remain so for hundreds more. Newton wasn't totally correct, but he was correct in a lot of ways. Einstein and Feynman were about as correct as they come. As a result, physics has become more and more accurate through the generations and the "facts" taught in undergraduate physics today were true fifty years ago and will likely still be largely true in ten, fifty, and a hundred years. Perhaps something in a higher-level course will change here or there, but most of physics will likely remain the same.

Consider math.
Math has a special place in the halls of knowledge; math is of a different sort than science. The truths one learns in math are true forever. Truth in math is unchanging and eternal. The contents of Euclid's Elements , written in 300 BCE, are still true and will remain true even when there are no humans to know these truths. Math discoveries are made and new ideas are created, but when they are created, they are forever true within their contexts. There are no "facts" of psychology that have survived from 300 BCE.

In psychology, focus on skills rather than "facts".
Focus on learning how to think critically, how to read science, and how to follow the scientific method. These are skills, which provide value that lasts a lifetime, even when particular "facts" are changed or forgotten.

Index

Return to Psychology The State of the Field

Continue to Most psychological research doesn't replicate

Jump to Undergraduate Psychology