Psychology Decided to Build a Science upon a Concept with No Objective Definition

Psychology defines itself as the scientific study of mind and behavior. Yet there is no scientific consensus on what the “mind” actually is.

Not even close.

Think about how “crazy” that is. No pun intended.

Physicalists say it’s brain chemistry. Functionalists say it’s software. Phenomenologists say it’s subjective experience. Pick your camp — that’s just the beginning of the confusion.

The field has been arguing for nearly 150 years. And counting.

The surprising thing is this isn’t a minor footnote. It’s a structural flaw at the foundation of an entire field of science.

How do you build a science upon an undefined concept?

This is just one reason behavioral science has openly described itself as “pre-paradigmatic” and an “incoherent mess.”

Instead of harmony and agreement, you get what Arthur Staats described directly in 1999 — a “would-be science” plagued by “mutual discreditation, inconsistency, redundancy, and controversy.”

Sounds fun. 😄

To compound matters, the field didn’t stop there. It labeled itself a science with a nonsense definition — then proceeded to conflate biology (a noun, the person) with behavior (also a noun, distinctly not the person).

This is where the fun really begins.