During the past century, scientific findings have significantly changed the way humans live in all spheres of life. Scientific methods have also been transferred to psychology to understand human behavior. Science uses systematic observation as a medium of obtaining knowledge. It is an empirical method that helps scientists learn more about our biological and physical world. Science has been used to save humanity from various catastrophes and diseases by discoveries of vaccines and the green revolution. These discoveries saved millions of people from eventual death caused by diseases that were untreatable.
Science has four vital elements, which include:
 1. Systematic observation. Scientists make observations in a very organized manner. The observed phenomenon is customarily measured and recorded to reduce memory bias, affecting scientific conclusions. Most observations are done in controlled conditions, which are systematically varied to understand the phenomenon comprehensively.
 2. Hypothesis testing. Hypotheses and theories are developed in a manner that can be tested. Testing hypotheses requires that experiments be conducted to either prove or refute the hypothesis. It is an empirical way of confirming the validity of such hypotheses.
 3. Democratic. Scientists usually engage in debates and discussions concerning their theories and observations. The free expression of scientific ideas helps bring out the best in science. Scientists do not disregard the works of others but engage in critiques and support of scientific works aimed at bettering the quality of knowledge acquired.
 4. Cumulative. The scientist also uses facts presented by earlier scientists to build on their works. Science provides a straight path of development where earlier advances build up better and more enriching facts and knowledge.
Some people still doubt psychology is a science because many psychological phenomena like intelligence, depression, and prejudice are seemingly unobservable. However, psychological researchers mainly focus on behavior because individual feelings and thoughts are invisible. Scientists can also observe the behaviors of identical and fraternal twins to know the extent to which social and genetic factors contribute to personality. In recent times, psychology has become a complex discipline because of better study designs, measures, and statistical analyses in exploring human nature (Diener). For instance, when studying the emotion of happiness, the psychologist can ask participants about their happiness and request them to indicate where their feelings lie on a numbered scale. Scientists can also use memory measures based on the idea that optimistic people have no problems recalling pleasant memories while negative people easily recall unpleasant events.
Moreover, psychologists also use biological measures, including saliva cortisol samples or fMRI images of brain activation. Therefore, psychological science is essential for creating interventions that enhance people’s lives. Many research studies are concerned with ascertaining which therapies are the least and most effective for treating psychological disorders. Several studies have indicated that cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective in helping people suffering from anxiety and depression disorders (Diener). Some other research findings have shown that some therapies are harmful and should be avoided. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the various interventions used to treat patients and eliminate those that are deemed as harmful.
In recent times, the easy way people access information and explanations makes us live in the “Information Age.” It is essential to consider the quality of information instead of quantity because not all information is to be trusted. Trustworthy information is hard to come by in an era full of fake news and misleading information. In this respect, science’s main task is to determine what type of information to consider as being well-informed. It uses observable data to help understand and explain the world in a trustworthy manner. Scientists conclude by using less certain words that are related to probabilities. Such a manner of explaining situations is what separates scientific from non-scientific statements.
Both methods make use of induction which concludes based on specific observations. However, the induction process is considered an untrustworthy way of providing information due to its contradictory results. Scientific thinking is distinguished from everyday thinking by certain prescribed features. These features found in scientific theories and data include consistency, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness. There is also another additional feature that is prevalent in scientific theorizing and thinking, known as falsification. Karl Popper dismisses statements that did not pass the falsification test. He viewed such statements as hindrances to scientific progress. Popper claimed that there was no way of refuting, refining, or advancing knowledge using such statements. He offered a solution that argued that there would be only one actual possibility if science proved that all others were not true (Erin). It means that scientists need to articulate all evidence to disapprove their hypotheses.
However, today’s scientists are more interested in providing explanations and descriptions for the way things are and not how they are not. There is a need to describe different causes and situations under which they happen. In this regard, it can be said that proof is associated with deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning makes use of general principles which are applied to specific situations. If the principles are accurate and the argument structure is valid, it automatically means that the conclusion is proven. A deductive truth is applicable in all situations with no exceptions. It is among the many differences between conclusions drawn from scientific observations and those drawn from personal anecdotes. Well-designed research depends on systematically-recorded observations that represent the population and are of high quality.
The Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is used to assess the probability that the data collected (observations) would be similar if no relationship existed between the variables in the research study. For instance, a researcher would want to find a relationship been class performance and age if there were, but in reality, no such link exists. The null hypothesis provides no meaningful link between academic performance and student maturity. This hypothesis also consists of an alternative hypothesis that the two variables are related. In evaluating the two hypotheses, the researcher needs to gather data and compares what she expects to find to what she finds. The aim of collecting data and making comparisons is to determine whether to reject or falsify the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. However, the research conclusions can be wrong due to errors. There are the type1 error and type11 errors (Erin). The type 1 error is when the research concludes that there is a relationship between the variables while there is not in reality. On the other hand, the type II error occurs when the collected data does not show a relationship between two variables while there exists one. However, researchers can set a threshold for type I and type II errors using probability values.