>> No, I start with how science is defined, note that psychology cannot meet the definition

> If you're relying on wikipedia ...

No, Wikipedia is not my source. I rely on a much better source, the thousands of sources that define science in the same way, unambiguously, including many court rulings, for example those that keep Creationism out of public school classrooms by defining science as something that requires empirical evidence and objective falsifiability.

> Alright, this is the end of the road for me.

Of course it is. Before we had this conversation you had no idea what constituted science and falsification, and now, you still have no idea.

I want to thank you for taking part in this conversation -- I often think it's not possible for someone not to understand science basics -- it's really rather simple -- but then I have a conversation like this, and I get it all over again.

> I don't disagree that physics is a more mature science, where connections between different branches are more clear.

What you think, your opinions, do not matter. Only evidence matters. And it occurs to me that you will never get this.

Scientist A says, "There is a largest prime. I don't know which prime it is, but there is a largest one. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept, therefore there cannot be an infinity of primes. Therefore there is a largest prime. Call it p."

Scientist B says, "I will falsify your claim. I agree that we shall call the largest prime p. Now let q = p factorial, i.e. q = p * (p-1) * (p-2), etc. At the end of the process, q is either a prime larger than p, which falsifies the claim, or q is composite, composed of primes, at least one of which is larger than p, which falsifies the claim. There are no other possibilities. I have falsified the claim."

Scientist A says, "Yes, you have falsified the claim, my opinion doesn't matter, how I feel about it doesn't matter, the falsification relies entirely on incontrovertible, objective evidence, evidence on which all educated observers must agree."

That is science. That is manifestly not psychology.

Another voice on this topic:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/doc...

Quote: "Today, all natural scientists throughout the world employ the scientific method. Normally it works like this: First, gather some data by observing an object or event, then propose an idea to explain the data, and finally test the idea by experimenting with Nature. Those ideas that pass the tests are selected, accumulated, and conveyed, while those that don’t are discarded — a little like the evolutionary events described on this Web site. In that way, by means of a selective editing or pruning of ideas, scientists discriminate between sense and nonsense. We gain an ever-better approximation of reality. Not that science claims to reveal the truth—whatever that is — just to gain an increasingly accurate model of Nature."

"Despite an emphasis on objectivity, some subjectivity does affect the modern scientific enterprise, for this is work done by human beings having strong emotions and personal values. Yet, with the test of time and repeated observations, objectivity eventually emerges and then dominates, enabling us to reach conclusions free of the biased viewpoint of any one scientist, institution, or culture. As a rational investigative approach used to formulate descriptions of natural phenomena, the scientific method is designed to yield a reasonably objective consensus on the nature, contents, and workings of the Universe." [emphasis added]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Have a nice day.