Abstract

The concept of psychologist as clinical scientist has found increasing support in recent years from diverse corners of professional psychology. Yet differences in how these advocates understand the nature of clinical scientific practice persist, fueled by philosophical differences over the nature of knowledge. Two epistemological paradigms that are the center of much discussion in contemporary philosophy are briefly explained: internalism vs. externalism. Modern clinical psychology has emerged largely within an internalist theory of knowledge. While psychologists have discerned important features of how one obtains knowledge in a clinical setting, it is argued that these discoveries are better positioned in an externalist epistemology. The implications of externalist clinical science for a number of relevant topics are discussed including: whether there is, or should be, a normative scientific method, the role of clinical judgment as a source of knowledge, and how science can be demarcated from pseudo-science without presupposing a methodological hegemony