Any chance you're going to answer my initial challenge, 'why is psychology pseudoscience'? Given what you've written, I'm going to guess the answer is "no". I'll point out why when we get there.
When you start getting contradictory results from tested research, at that moment you need stop what you're doing, go back to the original papers and start over.
I should probably point out that the study you think justifies the rejection of psychology didn't go back to the original papers and repeat the experiments after their initial failed replications. Does that change how you view the study? Why or why not?
There is an odd assumption wrapped up in that statement. The belief that a study either produced truth or it was unscientific. I've explained endlessly why that's absurd, and why science does not and can not deal in truth. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science in your statement here. Again, you'll find contradictory results in every discipline, physics included. How does your understanding of science account for that undeniable fact?
Your point about Ty Cobb is meaningless
I think it illustrates perfectly why your engineer example was completely ridiculous. (It is possible to be the best engineer/batter/etc in the world even with a high failure rate. That 50% number is meaningless.) Oh, yes, in case you didn't know, science and engineering are two completely different things.
Psychology can and never will be science, it's highly educated nut jobs, guessing randomly and scoped about the mental state of another person.
I don't need to do anything here except point out that it makes it painfully clear that don't know the first thing about psychology. From the look of it, you've never even taken an undergraduate course.
Perhaps you should leave science to those with actual credentials.