I think one of the major problems with fields like psychology is that they often deal with wicked problems. You just cannot really run rigorous experiments tha

I think one of the major problems with fields like psychology is that they often deal with wicked problems. You just cannot really run rigorous experiments that isolate explicit features you want to investigate. No two people have exactly the same experience. And you cannot repeat experiences. The fact that you've gone through an experience once informs you on the second trial. Watching something from 2 meters to the left is not the same experience as the person on your right. You will see slightly different things, hear slightly different things. And that's not even getting into all the years of upbringing everyone brings to the table before you even start. We can infer things from statistics, but that only takes us so far. Because of all the things that could influence those statistics. For instance, we've all seen the study that people who drink moderately often have better health outcomes that both those that abuse alcohol and those that completely abstain. Which kind of flies in the face of the medical/biological facts which show that any alcohol is technically bad for us. However, when you peel that study back, you see that the amount of alcohol consumed is often related to the income level of the person. People in poverty are more likely to both abstain and abuse. Either they use their money for things other than luxuries like alcohol or they've essentially given up and spend all of their money on alcohol. These same people often have worse healthcare options and thus worse health outcomes overall. So basically, the people who drink moderately have access to better health outcomes because they can afford it. Alcohol and health are completely unrelated, they are both dependent on a third variable. Now imagine that most of your studies have these hidden variables. And that you couldn't even know for sure that two things are correlated or coincidental because they are related to another or multiple other variables. I can imagine that being rather difficult. And not really a field for those who like to study and apply knowledge. Which I know sounds weird. But, for instance, medicine and law are both fields where you can study known facts and apply that knowledge in trade. As a doctor, you never have to advance the field yourself, it is not expected. Same with law. It seems that in psychology, you have to be comfortable with a degree of ambivalence. Of course, that same ambivalence and uncertainty allow a lot of people to peddle trash. But I don't have an answer for that, much less a good one.