No reproducibility = not a science
Psych makes plenty of fairly reliable predictions around social behaviour, childhood development and human machine interaction.
Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results.
It’s not physics. You can’t do it in a lab. But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty.
DSM is often wielded as a criticism but this is strictly speaking a psychiatric i.e “medical” tool which strictly speaking should be used as a basis for making diagnosis not for diagnosis itself. It’s limitations are well understood in the field of psychology and again somebody who understood the field would know this.
Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology?
> Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results.
I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously!
In any given internet discussion on a non-deterministic topic, there will be at least one person (usually several) who speaks as if they are omniscient (have the ability to accurately read minds, predict the future, know comprehensive reality, etc).
That's the manual of psychiatry (which is a very, very different thing) right?
DSM's only interaction with the field of psychology is for insurance purposes for therapists who are also psychologists.
I mean, I read it when I was doing a psychology undergrad, but it definitely wasn't something that was required.
FWIW, I think that you may not be defining psychology the same way as many of the commentators here.
Can you post a study you feel shows that nothing in psychology is reproducible?