Because in traditional sciences, you have a clear distinction on what your trying to achieve. If you wanna understand how matter interacts with each other matter, you formulate methods that can accurately describe what geinueily happens, you know what your trying to achieve.
With psychology, you trying to figure out whether or not certain behaviors are common/normal/okay, what is considered common/normal/okay changes with time and location.
>scientific method
Which one?
>Which one?
Any of them.
No they just study human history and see the patterns.
Alright let's take Kuhn's scientific method
>Have a theory
>Propose hypothesis which follows from said theory
>Confirm hypothesis using methods accepted by your field
>Convince other members of your field that your findings are valid
Which step do you think psychologists are not engaging in? I haven't read a lot of psychological journals, but my impression is that their papers generally have hypotheses, derived from, theories, which they attempt to confirm using statistical/experimental methods, and get their colleagues to validate through the peer review process.
Where did Kuhn write this?
They do. They just have a hard time controlling variables and defining terms.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Specifically chapters 3 and 4.
Obviously, it's a fairly loose description of how he describes normal science, but that should be the jist of it. Unless you think I left a step out?
(((Thomas Kuhn)))
>2018
>believing in scientific revolutions and the incommensurability thesis