But this is also a problem. This leads to getting an "ought" from an "is". Here's an example.
More and more people are traveling with airplanes. Therefore, we ought to have more airports.
Well, no, we don't. They're hard on the environment and take up a lot of space, and we have a lot of airports already.
This is what psychology does. Sometimes it's different.
"8,000 out of 10,000 people who were poked flinched. Therefore, the other 2,000 are clearly wired different mentally."
That may be seem a little extreme, but it's an analogy.
That's fallicious logic mon ami.
Different is not equivalent to bad in psychology or any other field, it is merely different. Sure, it can be interpreted that way by people, but do you purpose that we ignor that 1/5 of the population was wired differently mentally because some people might decide that it meant that it's bad?
Science is the study of reality as it is, it does not conform to your preconceptions of what's bad or good.
As for psychological treatment (since I know you'll bring this up), like anything else it's the person who goes to the doctor saying, "I want this treated", the psychologist does not decide for the person what is good or bad, he or she merely helps a person get rid of the issues that this person wishes to get rid of. In the same way an M.D. cannot treat a person who has been stabbed through the heart if they say, "you know, I really like my stab wound, don't treat it".
The psychologist does not decide what is good or bad, he or she knows what the majority does not want (as it is part of their job), but it is the patient who decides how things ought to be.
Psychology is about what is (including how to change what is), not what ought to be.
I think the true x causes y relationships are what defines a science.
Facts in psychology are based off of larges groups of people, and you have to assume that they are giving you a proper reading.
This leads me to state that it's more a philosophy than a science.
Did I say that there weren't x causes y relationships?
No, I said they were more difficult to obtain, x causes y relationships are indeed at the core of psychology.
However since the methodology is indirect, it's far more difficult to obtain the exact relationship, therebye requiring more time and energy to obtain.
As for the validity of the data, there is no assumption of proper readings, there is a complicated calculus based process by which the data is verified, with the null hypothesis being no relationship. If you ever take a statistics class you will see exactly what the standards are for verifying data, and the vast majority of studies are tossed out as having insignificant results (in essence, while there seemed to be a relationship, there was not enough of a correlation within the data to prove it).'
From there, the process generally gets more complex, however controlling for variables until you have only one variable that could be effecting both groups works, or you could have another branch of science directly verify the relationship if possible.
But psychology can ultimately isolate causation.
I would like to add that I am essentially responding to your topic title, however, psychology is based on reproducible experimental data, a valid psychology experiment can always be repeated (and by experiment I mean study, of any of the varieties). Your issue should be with anthropology and sociology because both depend on a series of natural experiments, and it isn't really feasible to create civilizations for study.
That said, the thing I disagree with most is your unquantified lumping of so-called "soft science" as BS. If you consider soft science (as you previously defined) BS, then justify such an assertion.
