Unlikely. The main problem is that calling a tradition "non-scientific" or "not hard science" also has a pejorative meaning. And there's an unfortunate mystific

Unlikely. The main problem is that calling a tradition "non-scientific" or "not hard science" also has a pejorative meaning. And there's an unfortunate mystification of science as something other than a mode of inquiry, with its limitations and advantages. Plus, people gain funding by hitching themselves to the social respectability of science. In the case of psychology, they're studying something of great interest which happens to be far too complex for easy scientific study. (Take for example the physicist; once the object or system under study becomes too complex, it's tossed to the chemist, who in turn tosses overly complex things down the line...) (I've heard similar analysis from some scientists. I vaguely recall Chomsky recently gave a lucid explanation in his talk "The machine, the ghost and the limits of understanding: Newton's contribution to the study of mind", as well in a couple books he wrote. For his part, he thinks linguistics is in a pre-galilean phase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0)