Only if experimental results can be obtained using objective scientific methods, with control groups and strict experimental protocols, and only if the results can be successfully replicated. In other words, they cannot be studied scientifically. That's the meaning of the linked article: no replication. The article doesn't say such studies can be replicated, it discusses how to deal with the fact that they cannot.
No, I am addressing the question, which is whether present psychological research is or is not scientific.
> It absolutely is possible to have well-designed studies that address these topics.
Not ethically, no -- not possible. Prospective double-blind studies are virtually unheard of in psychology because of ethical issues.
> It's how we know anything about depression, anxiety, happiness, motivation, etc. etc.
Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics. For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work:
Title: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration":
Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faulty-circ...
A quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance."
In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything."
The above study did something quite clever -- it combined studies that the drug industry published, with studies that were paid for and conducted but then suppressed. The outcome for this combination, i.e. all such studies, is that there is no meaningful statistical difference between an antidepressant and a placebo.
Why do you believe this to be the only valid form of scientific study? Do you hold all disciplines to this standard?
>Yes, true, which is why, in a scientific sense, we don't know anything about these topics.
We know that certain assessments reliably indicate the presence of depression. We know certain conditions reliably induce depression. We know certain therapies reliably relieve depression. We know certain risk factors lead to greater likelihood of depression.
>For example, it has recently been determined by way of a meta-analysis that the many antidepressant studies, taken as a whole, contradict each other, and the conclusion is that antidepressants don't work.
>In layman's language, "there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that antidepressants actually do anything."
Can you explain to me how science can decide one way or another on matters concerning depression if such things are inscrutable to the scientific method?