Unless you want to start growing test subject humans in vats, it's not exactly something that's as simple as "testing right" — the problem isn't lack of will or skill. We can't just throw rats at this problem like many scientific fields do.
Atomic bombs are very dangerous too and not very easy to "test them right", but atomic physics is a real science.
Anyway, the problem in psychology is that psychologists often lie and fabricate false evidence, not that the rats aren't enough.
There are multiple studies about it, published by scientists, most of them agree that "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted."
There's a point where a field can't keep going on shielding behind the false myth that "the problem is that we can't test on humans".
Can you link a study, that makes such a claim?
Of course I can, I took it from a study!
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
--------------------
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/
https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-stu...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120
the real problem is that the kind of psychology studies that gets the more attention on the media, that shape the culture and the beliefs of the general public and that are often used by governs and institutions (even medical ones) to deploy policies, health care plans, school or work environment guidelines, etc. etc. are those that are less trustworthy, that fail to be replicated the most and more subject to interpretations and subjective biases, in particular social psychology (citation: Social Psychology (38% success rate, n = 256).)
I think they're still doing science, it's just much more difficult given physical and ethical constraints.
* Psychology is not a "real" science because it doesn't produce quality evidence.
* But quality psychological evidence is (too) hard to produce.
See how the second point doesn't really refute the first?
That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real."
Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.