Lutus is one of my favourite pieces of art on the internet. He seems to be in the habit of writing the exact same article over and over again. I first encountered him on the early days of Reddit when I was a 6th grader who cashed in his birthday AND Christmas money for a laptop. #middleclass
Regarding the whole "is psychology a science" debate, I have concluded that it's not. In fact, due to the inherent epistemological naïveté built into probability theory physics is no longer rigorous enough to be considered a science as well. Add in the incompleteness theorem in math and only folk-punk records will be considered science from now on.
I hope you enjoyed my TED Talk Hubski. Never, ever give up and never, ever grow up.
There's a difference between hard science and soft science. The argument over psychology is whether it's a hard science (chemistry, physics) or a soft science (economics). Most people would argue it's a soft science. Statistical inferences can be drawn from psychological experiments that may or may not hold true for an individual as determined by probability. The core problem with psychology is that our models aren't great.
Physics as experienced by 99.99% of humanity is obnoxiously rigorous. Newtonian mechanics dictates the stupendous majority of the physical interactions in most peoples' lives, and the left over bits subject to relativity (GPS, electronics, lasers) are so surface-level relativistic that they're well within the sweet spot of theory. You have to get pretty deep into quantum mechanics before the effects of assumptions predominate.