Psychology presumes the existence of a brain, and presumption is a very unscientific thing to predicate a science on, isn't it? Puzzling development. It forces us to consider two important questions. First, where does science come from? Short answer is it comes from the brain. The brain composes science. There is no long answer.
Second question: how does a thing that composes science compose a science of itself? To answer this, we must determine what science is. Here is a detailed chart:
The above is derived from the philosophy of Empiricists, an impressive list of thinkers that begins with Aristotle and winds up around John Stuart Mill. I believe Hume did the lettering and Berkeley added the pretty colors. It took them 2000 years to produce this chart, so be careful with it.
The Scientific Method is a logical sequence of six procedures: identification of a problem, research, hypothesis (educated guess), experiment (fun part because it can include explosions), analysis (seeing what blew up) and conclusion. I shall discuss this Method because one can streamline the process with minimal sacrifice of empirical protocol. It is done semantically and one needn't trouble with technical knowledge of the universe beyond basic grammar. So I can do it.
Here's how. You take the first empirical step, Purpose, and figure out that it means stating a problem. In language, that's called a question. Example: Do I have a brain? Then you skip down to the sixth and last step, drop interrogative punctuation and transpose the subject and verb. You get the following declarative sentence: I do have a brain. That's known as a Conclusion.
Now that we've scientifically proven the existence of the brain, we could use the same method to pursue the logical second question, a question --I might add-- asked by every inquisitive kid in the 1950s: Can I have an ATOMIC BRAIN please? We could use empiricism but this works too:
Ok, it's movie poster. Me and my brother, Frankie, went to see this film in 1956 or 7 and haven't seen it since but it left an impression. I remember it was about a mad scientist and some guys. Mad scientist used mad science to stick atomic brains in the guys. Then the guys would lumber around crashing through walls and doors to get victims who'd fall on the floor and yell. It was a great film!
Frankie and I went home and drew big stitches on our foreheads. We lumbered around the yard and crashed into things. We'd go, "sshhkkkrrrrssshhh!!! That's a wall! We got ATOMIC BRAINS!" The cats and chickens were afraid of us. They ran like hell.
Now I hear psychologists and physicists have reached theoretical confluence. It is possible the human brain exploits some form of quantum coherence. This is promising, not only in redefining memory as a sensory perception of subjective pasts --real time travel-- but in more deliberate investigation of various types of telepathy. This is not merely progress; it's a new possibility of existence.
My brother and I, however, would recommend stitch marks more erasable than ballpoint pen ones.