Good post Woodhams, I'll use an analogy I formed when discussing Psychology with my girlfriend whose been in the field a while: Psychology today is like studying Chemistry in the bronze age. Back then, they didn't have the means to understand the why of this chemical working with this chemical, they just knew it worked and did Chemistry via trial and error and guessing. Today, psychology is classifying things based on relations and forming best practices, but we don't understand why things are the way they are because of our limited understanding of the brain.
Maybe things will change in 100 years, maybe not. I think the field is worth its weight in gold though, there's a lot of good that can be/is being done and a lot of progress still to be made.
That is an extremely narrow view of psychology today and pretty much views it in terms of therapy. Let me ask you this, when Warren Buffet invests in the market using a contrarian strategy, are you stating that there is no underlying science backing him up? I ask, because he and many others seem to be quite successful at it.
Real psychology has a lot more depth than the therapist's couch. Should the determination of what is science be based on if it can fulfill the requirements of the scientific method versus preconceived notions?
Astronomy, what many would call a science, uses probability to tell us there is life on other planets in the galaxy. Psychology, what many are saying is not a science, uses the same probability to predict various behaviors. What's the difference? One has been deemed science and one has not and yet they both use similar tools to come to their results. It seems pretty subjective.
But here is the crux of the matter. The scientific method states that you first ask a question, then pose a hypothesis, then test your hypothesis, analyze your data and draw a conclusion. If a psychology experiment does all of that, how is it not science?