The Measurement of Explanations for Humans Conduct: Not at all, Indirectly, or Something Else Entirely?

Empirical observation and measurement are defining features not only of the natural sciences, but also of the social sciences, including psychology. In contrast, many, if not most, of the terms we use to describe and explain humans and their activities in our everyday language involve concepts that are unobserved and/or unobservable and therefore never measured. Some academic communities propose there is a close relationship between our everyday language and the possibility of understanding ourselves and assume that little of interest can be revealed by quantitatively measuring humans or human behavior. Consequently, a comprehensive scientific understanding of humans is unlikely. For academic communities that are open to attempts to measure and scientifically understand humans and human behavior, one strategy has been take ideas and concepts from our everyday language and claim to study them indirectly through measurable events such as environmental stimuli, behavior and neurological activity. Another approach has been to do away with the terms from everyday language altogether and let relationships between measurable aspects of the physical world define the concepts of a science of humans and human behavior. The current paper will further describe the three approaches outlined, discuss them in light of the proposal that measurement is a defining part of science, and present some challenges for each approach.