Zagaria, Andó́ and Zennaro (in this issue) have offered that the discipline of psychology is fraught with conceptual chaos and a multiplicity of constructs. They have also assessed psychology to be a soft science, with much potential to be a hard science, should it allow itself to be unified by the principles offered by evolutionary psychology. With this approach, psychology would transition from its pre-paradigmatic to a paradigmatic status. In this commentary, we question their premise, method and conclusion, and finally submit that the preoccupation with paradigm is connected with a positivist view of scientific knowledge production. Psychological constructs are not ostensive in nature and cannot be treated as matter is in the hard sciences. This is neither possible, nor desirable. Additionally, such constructs are located in various theoretical perspectives, necessary to understand their multifaceted nature. We question the proposal of evolutionary psychology as an alternative meta-theory. Psychology is essentially a human endeavor, and we must step out of our need to follow the acultural Euro-American vision of positivist science, and instead build an enterprise that can be plural, contextually sensitive and incorporate the complexity and interdisciplinarity needed to be truly successful at approaching the human condition.

Zagaria，Andó和Zennaro（本期杂志）提出，心理学学科充满了概念混乱和结构的多重性。他们还评估了心理学是一门软科学，如果它能被进化心理学所提供的原理统一起来，则很有可能成为一门硬科学。通过这种方法，心理学将从其范式前的状态过渡到范式状态。在这篇评论中，我们质疑它们的前提，方法和结论，并最终认为，对范式的关注与科学知识生产的实证主义观点有关。心理构造本质上不是表面性的，不能像硬科学中那样被当作物质来对待。这既不可能也不希望。另外，这样的结构位于各种理论角度，对于理解它们的多面性是必不可少的。我们质疑进化心理学作为替代元理论的提议。心理学本质上是人类的工作，我们必须走出遵循欧美文化对实证主义科学的看法，而要建立一个具有多元性，情境敏感性并结合真正成功所需的复杂性和跨学科性的企业在接近人类的状况。