> Psychology is defined as the scientific study of mental functions and behavior--not the mind.

Let's look up the definition of psychology and see if it corresponds to your claim:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Quote: "Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors."

No denial that the mind is the focus of psychological research -- not surprising, since the word "mental" fully acknowledges the role of the mind. This means psychology relies on the mind for its content. And the mind cannot produce empirical evidence.

Next Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Criticism

Quote: "Criticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[68] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics."

"Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not an objective science. Other concepts that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured[69] and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic."

Gee, that sounds familiar.

> Therefore, since scientists publish peer-reviewed scientific papers with empirical, falsifiable, evidence for theories about mental functions and behavior, Psychology is a science.

Not without the empirical evidence that the mind cannot produce, or an effort to shape empirical, testable, falsifiable theories. But don't take my word for it -- because this is a discussion of science, let's try a thought experiment -- let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist.

Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?

> And as I said before, in Thinking, Fast and Slow Kahneman outlines many of these studies, and the citation section of his book serves as an atlas of counter-examples to your position.

False. These are descriptions, not explanations, and they do not shape an "overarching theory", for the lack of which every commentator has criticized psychology for decades. Science requires explanations. I should tell you that this is not a new argument -- it's been put forth any number of times in the history of psychology, most recently by the director of the NIMH in his recent ruling that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...).

> I've refuted the central point of your argument ...

You have done nothing of the kind. You do realize, don't you, that scientific discussions must be accompanied by evidence, yes? Where is your evidence that mind studies can produce empirical evidence or theories?

Where is the physical location of the mind? Where is the objective evidence in support of any part of psychological research, on which different observers are forced to agree? If I attach electrodes to a brain, do I connect to the mind, or have I crossed over into neuroscience, a separate field?

More evidence for the fact that psychology is not science --

Title: "Why psychology isn't science"

Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-...

Quote: "The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists."

"That's right. Psychology isn't science."

"Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability."

> ... and instead of trying to prove me wrong ...

If you had any understanding of science, you would know that:

1. The burden of evidence is not mine, it is yours.

2. The claim that psychology contains science somewhere is unfalsifiable in the same way, and for the same reason, that claims of Bigfoot sightings are unfalsifiable, for reasons given here:

Title: "Russell's teapot"

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ..."

> ... think about how ridiculous you carried yourself in this thread.

Guess what? Shifting away from legitimate arguments to argumentum ad hominem is a widely recognized acknowledgement of defeat.