So when a physicists makes something up as a reasonable assumption, later to be found wrong, that is just good science. But a psychologist makes some assumptio

So when a physicists makes something up as a reasonable assumption, later to be found wrong, that is just good science. But a psychologist makes some assumptions, later to be found wrong, it is complete bullshit, con artists, the entire field is corrupt. Do you see the false dichotomy here? You are so biased you can't even see the problem.