The Future of Science and Psychology: From Human Limitations to Digital Precision

The advancement of modern data collection and processing technologies has not merely resulted in an incremental improvement but has catalyzed a revolutionary breakthrough in the comprehension and documentation of reality. The development of machine learning systems, neural networks, big data, and automated observational algorithms has introduced fundamentally new methods of analysis that were previously unattainable.

When juxtaposed with traditional scientific methodologies, these advancements prompt a fundamental question: To what extent did the scientific methodologies of previous eras truly adhere to the criteria of objectivity? Prior to the advent of digital technologies and comprehensive process monitoring, any experiment was inherently selective, and data processing was influenced by subjective factors—researchers’ interpretations, data limitations, and the imperfections of available tools.

Today, every scientist is justified in posing an uncomfortable yet crucial question:

• Do we possess a genuine science in the strictest sense of the term?
• Or is what we conventionally regard as "scientific knowledge" merely a collection of isolated cases institutionalized without claiming true objective completeness?

In an era where thousands types of sensors, cameras, and other recording devices continuously capture reality with exceptional precision, and where machine algorithms analyze this data with a speed and depth beyond human cognitive capacity, traditional scientific methods face an existential crisis. It is conceivable that classical science served merely as an intermediary phase in the evolution of knowledge acquisition, its primary function being to lay the groundwork for novel frameworks of understanding—ones that rely on the comprehensive digital processing of reality.

Beyond Human-Centric Science: Rethinking Our Perception of Reality

Human egocentrism must be left behind. For some reason, past scientific paradigms have operated under the assumption that life is a unique phenomenon exclusive to Earth within the Solar System. Yet, few of these scientists ever posed a fundamental question: how does an ordinary ant or another insect perceive a human being? What is their field of vision? How do they experience time? If they had attempted to extrapolate this perspective to humanity’s own perception of the external world, they might have realized that their understanding of reality is profoundly constrained.

The speed and intensity of physiological processes observable by traditional science were, quite obviously, limited by the capabilities of the observers themselves. If we extend this logic further, it may turn out—mark my words, for this is inevitable—that the universe consists entirely of objects that can be regarded as living entities, including vast cosmic structures such as planets, stars, and even galaxies.

If human egocentrism, shaped by the narrowness of perception, constructed a belief system called "science," it does not necessarily mean that this system operates under an objective scientific method. On the contrary, as science expands its horizons, it becomes increasingly evident that many of its former dogmas are nothing more than temporary constructs, useful in their time but ultimately limited.

Any competent physicist is well aware of the countless assumptions embedded within modern science. Yet, no one labels physics as "pseudoscience," even though its models are continually revised and refined. In reality, the term "pseudoscience" is most frequently employed by those who have little to no direct involvement in scientific inquiry—popularizers, journalists, and commentators—or by the bureaucratic administrators of science, such as institutional directors and policymakers. A true scientist is unlikely to use this term because science, at its core, is a process of inquiry, not a rigid doctrine.

Of course, there are cases where "pseudoscience" is a justifiable label—when deliberate deception is used to mislead people for personal gain rather than to pursue truth. However, when discussing alternative approaches to understanding reality, dismissing them as pseudoscience serves only to stifle scientific progress and obstruct a broader perspective on the nature of existence.

Psychology: A Science Without a "Bomb" or the Foundation of the Future?

When evaluating science by its practical achievements, psychology appears as a poor relative among the disciplines driving technological progress. Physicists have created nuclear weapons, conquered space, and connected the world through global networks. Chemists have learned to synthesize substances that have transformed human life—ranging from life-saving medications to mind-altering narcotics. But what has psychology contributed on a similar scale?

The most common response is that "human nature is too complex to be studied like material processes." However, the issue is not merely the complexity of the subject. For a long time, psychology was not taken seriously as a real science. Instead, it was perceived as an entertainment-driven discipline—offering advice on "how to understand yourself," "how to manipulate others," or "how to spot a narcissist." Even psychotherapy, despite its significance, has remained a niche field, while in business, psychology is often treated as a secondary tool rather than a core discipline.

Of course, there are real-world applications of psychological science. Mass hypnosis and NLP techniques are so effective that even teenagers on TikTok use them to influence others. However, these isolated cases do not constitute the kind of scientific breakthrough that reshapes civilization. Psychology has yet to produce its own "atomic bomb"—a revolutionary discovery or technology that fundamentally alters human society.

This lack of tangible breakthroughs is precisely why accusations of "pseudoscience" are so prevalent in the field. Where research fails to yield measurable results, struggles for legitimacy inevitably arise. Any attempt to push beyond traditional boundaries and offer something more than conventional counseling methodologies is often seen as a threat to the established order.

Yet, psychology may be following the same trajectory as statistics. Once considered a mere auxiliary field, statistics eventually evolved into the backbone of Big Data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Today’s advances in data processing are beginning to capture psychological processes with a level of precision previously unimaginable. This could mark a transition in which psychology ceases to be a "science of the soul" and transforms into an exact engineering discipline—one capable not only of explaining behavior but also of constructing entirely new cognitive structures and behavioral models.

We may be witnessing the end of traditional psychology and the birth of an entirely new science—one that will finally provide tangible, applicable tools for understanding and managing human cognition. Until then, psychology remains suspended between being a form of popular entertainment and its aspiration to become something far more profound.