It is widely believed that psychoanalysis is not a scientifically falsifiable theory, but is science really a reliable form of measurement with regards to the effectiveness of psychoanalytical theory?
For millennia the study of the human brain and its function has fascinated scientists and researchers alike. The sheer complexity of the organ’s function has posed countless questions over the years. Some of these questions can be answered scientifically and some cannot. Can the brain be measured? Just how powerful is the mind? Are there connections between various mental processes and human behaviour? These are just a handful of questions that have been empirically and scientifically researched in the past. Technological advances have caused interest in these issues to re-ignite over the past 2 decades and various theorists have arrived at their respective conclusions which delve into different aspects of personality (Carver, Sutton & Scheier, 2000). Some take a more scientific approach by exploring different sections of the brain through the study of biological psychology and neuroscience. Alternatively, other theorists have relied solely on empirical research and experimentation in order to arrive at their conclusions. Neither method is incorrect, but the findings do tend to vary.
It is understood that “psychology is the science of mental processes and behaviour” (Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001, p. 4), but does this in turn mean that one could effectively measure these attributes accurately? The answer to this question is both yes and no depending on how the question is looked upon. Mental processes, in most cases, cannot be measured accurately as the human brain is such an unpredictable organ that is constantly changing. In saying this however, just how accurate is accurate enough when measuring the human brain and its function? Many psychologists have debated this point as they each have a different understanding and perception of the term ‘accurate’. The key...