> If you think psychology is ascientific, then you're living in the psychology of about a century ago. On the contrary, psychology is today widely recognized a

> If you think psychology is ascientific, then you're living in the psychology of about a century ago. On the contrary, psychology is today widely recognized as scientific in name only: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/the-myth-of-self-correcting-science/266228/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/the-myth-o... But beyond the many psychology scandals presently being discussed, it's important to say that descriptions, regardless of how detailed they are, don't constitute science. For science, one must risk a testable explanation, a theory. The absence of theories, testable and tested, and on which different psychologists can agree, is what separates psychology from mainstream science. In the crafting of the new DSM-V (about to be published), psychologists added mental conditions, and removed conditions, based on -- evidence? -- no, on votes, and secret votes at that. This is not science. The unscientific state of psychology has led the present director of the NIMH to take note of the gradual eclipsing of psychology by neuroscience: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circuits http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circ... A quote: "In most areas of medicine, doctors have historically tried to glean something about the underlying cause of a patient’s illness before figuring out a treatment that addresses the source of the problem. When it came to mental or behavioral disorders in the past, however, no physical cause was detectable so the problem was long assumed by doctors to be solely “mental,” and psychological therapies followed suit. Today scientific approaches based on modern biology, neuroscience and genomics are replacing nearly a century of purely psychological theories, yielding new approaches to the treatment of mental illnesses." > Psychology has been incredibly rigorous since the 1920s, and by virtually any metric it's as hard a hard science as any other hard science. Quite false. Few psychologists agree with each other on anything, and fewer still are willing to put forth a testable, falsifiable theory about the workings of the human mind. This is why spectacular frauds like Stapel and Hauser can play the field like a badly tuned violin -- few practitioners are qualified to recognize that it's not science.