In addition to what huahaiy said, to me it appears that your incorrect perceptions of the state of psychology are coming from conflating the highly visible peri

In addition to what huahaiy said, to me it appears that your incorrect perceptions of the state of psychology are coming from conflating the highly visible peripheries of clinical psychology (ie the content of the DSMs, clinical psychologists often making the same mistake that general practitioners of classical medicine make of attempting to diagnose illnesses they aren't experts on by simply checking of a list of symptoms, etc) with research psychology, while either being unaware of or failing to recall the myriad of non-clinical uses of applied psychology in government and industry. For example, modern (ie post 1940s) advertising is a direct application of psychological research, and from the get-go, in the psychological dark ages, it was successfully predicting human behavior for the purposes of amassing untold wealth. Psychology is real science, that is actually based on making and verifying/refuting precise predictions. Just because applying the fruits of the study is extremely hard, does not mean the study is bogus. That sort of thinking is directly analogous to assuming that computer science is a bogus field just because alot of web programmers literally can't reason about an algorithm even if millions of dollars are on the line.