The methods and principles of the natural sciences are not a diet we need to follow: A close look at the terms of the question

In this article, I discuss each of the elements of this special issue’s question, that is, “should,” “psychology,” “follow,” “the methods and principles,” and “the natural sciences,” and first argue that the natural sciences are many and diverse, and the choice to emulate them would still leave plenty of room for variety. There are, moreover, good ontological reasons to resist the urge to restrict what we call “psychology” to the study of human life with the “methods and principles of the natural sciences.” Psychologists should feel free to adopt and adapt (rather than follow) what has been developed in other fields of research in terms of principles, methods, techniques, and instruments. That includes fields of research other than those in the natural sciences.