> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics.

True, but psychology is not the medical field. You've picked the flashiest "branch" of it to make your archetype, but it's probably the least representative of the whole (though admittedly perhaps the best funded). Clinical psychology is more focused not on what is normal, but what is abnormal, how to diagnose it, and how to respond. Almost all of the rest of psychology is focused on what is normal, typically within a given context (childhood, workplace, developmentally, etc.)

> psychology isn't unified by a respect for science, or by reliable, falsifiable theory.

Psychology is not unified by a single reliable theory. I have no problem admitting as much. Maybe someday, but not while I'm alive. Again, if that's your baseline for what it takes to be considered scientific, I'm fine saying "then by that definition it's not scientific" and feeling no shame.

> This sounds increasingly like one of those joke conversations about which kind of Southern Baptist you are.

Then you're not thinking critically. Your doctor-biologist example doesn't fly because one's work (biology) directly and materially affects the work of the other (medicine). What clinical psychologists do, more than almost any other branch, has no impact on me presently, nor I on them. Our populations are different, and the goals of our research with respect to our populations are different. Ridicule the division if you wish, but what do you want me to do? Do you expect my field to reconfigure itself entirely to become experts on abnormal behavior and diagnoses? Should I, in my effort to increase workplace productivity and satisfaction, educate myself on the ins-and-outs of autism or psychological disorders? Human behavior is so large and complex to support these various divisions.

Many, many branches are connected in some way. It's a web. I have no ability to speak beyond the basics of clinical psychology. I can speak to psychometrics, social personality, experimental, educational and consumer psychology, and behavioral analysis (all of which are branches of the APA). Outside of a general interest in human behavior with no regard for context, my goals are as different from a clinical psychologists as a biologists are from neurologists. It's hard enough to do good work in specific contexts, unfortunately. Psychology right now is a bottoms-up field because we're just too ignorant as a species (despite efforts) to do it top-down right now.

> I say this to remind you how you sound then you try to describe psychology as though it's a bunch of disconnected pieces. Not that that isn't so, but it provides us with a measure of the significance of science in psychology.

I don't have to try to describe it that way, because it is. It's a pragmatic response to the complications of understanding people on the whole. The whole is too disparate, so look at the pieces. That bothers you, but most don't seem as perturbed. I'm sure you see this as concrete evidence for your point, but you won't be surprised that I think that's poor criteria. "Psychology" as a term is almost certainly overly broad, which is why so many divisions exist in the first place.

> If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists

It is true, and I disagree. Bad science is found everywhere. Look at what bad science has done for vaccines. Do I hold it as an archetype of medical science? Your argument seems to be "we're not perfect at explaining literally all cognition and behavior in a Single Unified Theory now, mistakes have been made in the past, so sod the whole thing."

Physicists are on the same page because their work is infinitely more provable. Ultimately human cognition and behavior is a much more practically difficult, nebulous topic at the present time that's going to take longer to get right on the whole. It's all probably just math itself in some respect, and maybe we'll know the equation someday à la Hari Seldon in The Foundation. We're not there yet.

>> The last part of your request is unreasonable - proving that there is no utility whatsoever in old theories is unnecessary.

> Then you do not understand science.

Then you're not thinking critically. It's this kind of thing that turns me off these conversations completely. For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. While the theory on the whole may prove false, certain elements of the theory or the direction may prove useful in new theories. Old, falsified theories are invaluable for paving the way towards new theories, and not all elements of all falsified theories need be disposed of whole-hog. You can completely reject and recognize the positive contributions it has made, and the utility elements of it still possess.

I think we know where each other stand on this now. At the very least, you got your examples.

EDIT: Passovers for grammar.