This seems equivalent to the insight that a machine cannot be a programmer, ie., a system which cannot frame open problems cannot design systems which solve clo

This seems equivalent to the insight that a machine cannot be a programmer, ie., a system which cannot frame open problems cannot design systems which solve closed problems. NB. open here meaning aprox. "a problem class which is framed as a class by the solver"; closed meaning, "one of a class of pre-solved problems". Since humans are extreme open-problem framers, their framing strategies are themselves updated adaptively (by the environment) -- which cannot be reduced to any class of closed problems. Since (social) science does not have a theory of open-framing (ie., intelligence & problem solving proper) each description can only be a closed-solution description of a particular behaviour -- which then becomes invalidated when we reframe (eg., via reading the journal article). Your claim, re the haulting problem, suggests that there -- in some sense -- can never be a computable theory of open framing (, this seems highly plausible to me). In which case psychology is broadly impossible. However things like anger, family, etc. do exist. Psychology as a science of behaviour may be impossible; but there is a science of deterministic forces of human behaviour.