Which is why it's not a real science. No one is saying that "scientists" working on psychology are negligent, but that it's impossible for psychology to meet the requirements of a real science.
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.