**TL;DR - There are scientific elements to psychology but it isn’t an empirical science** Personally, I can understand how this topic causes much dispute. Many Psychology degrees are BSc (Bachelor of Science), however some psychology and humanities degrees are BAs (Bachelor of Arts). So which is it? There are aspects of psychology that overlap with biology as well as chemistry. There are topics on hormone imbalances, the impact of antidepressants, how the brain is wired and how different parts of the brain control different parts of behaviour and emotion. There are certainly parts that are scientific and science based. However, there is a lot of interpretation and opinion in Psychology that doesn’t quite exist in the more empirical sciences. When talking about empirical sciences I am referring to Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Yes, there can be disputes in science but it is based on the same evidence, not on different interpretations of behaviour. This is where Psychology differs and places itself in a grey area. There are other non-sciences that use and talk about and interpret science, in my opinion. Political science as well as Philosophy also consider Biology, Chemistry and Physics just as Psychology does. So what makes Psychology different? For me, there are many scientific topics that arise in Psychology. Psychology also helps to explain human behaviour and emotion in a more in depth way compared to just Philosophy for example. However, it is not an empirical science and I don’t believe it to hold the same empiricism as it allows for more personal interpretation.

**TL;DR - If we define science as a discipline that seeks to understand the world through experiment and observation, psychology must be considered a science.** Psychology does not necessarily present strict and quantifiable conclusions to many of the questions its seeks to answer. What defines it as a science, however, are the methods it employs in the process of answering those questions; a science is defined by its methodology, not its numeracy. Though psychology can appear subjective and overly qualitative at face-value, researchers in the field invoke scientific rigour in their studies. - _Empirical method_ - psychology directly employs the scientific method with rigour that is arguably equivalent to that observed in several cases under the natural sciences. This is easily observed in the biological level of psychology but equally relevant in social, cognitive, and other branches of the discipline. A few classic examples include [Albert Bandura's _Bobo Doll_ experiment (1963)](https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html), a social psychology study investigating the effect of aggressive role models on child behaviour, and the cognitive psychology study on the [Primacy effect in memory by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)](https://www.simplypsychology.org/primacy-recency.html). These studies effectively control and manipulate a set of variables to observe and compare an outcome with a prediction (hypothesis), and yield allow inferences of cause and effect relationships. - _Observation and Quasi-Experiments_ - focus groups, surveys, and acculturative studies are a few observational and quasi-experimental techniques that psychologists employ in their study of human behaviour. While the results of these research efforts are likely qualitative or correlational, they are notably similar to studies conducted in ecology, for example - another discipline in which the strict manipulation or control of variables and the environment is nigh impossible in numerous scenarios. Astrophysics, though mathematically rigorous by virtue of the data involved, is presented with a similar dilemma. These examples serve to illustrate that the scientific method alone is not the defining approach of 'the sciences', and that observation plays a critical role in sub-disciplines. Case studies are often interesting reads and good examples of observational studies, such as [Paul Broca's study of the patient 'Tan', a man who lost the ability of coherent speech](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/the-man-who-couldnt-speakand-how-he-revolutionized-psychology/).

I would say "Psychology isn't scientific enough*". Like many "soft" sciences, there are a few limitations to how truly scientific they can be. 1. Natural Factors: Sociology and Psychology are attempting to describe some of, if not THE, most complex systems on the planet. It is all extremely fuzzy logic, and it is impossible to hold enough of the variables in-hand to be able to make more than vague predictions. 2. Synthetic Factors: Having come from a math and physics background, it often shocks me how quickly conclusions are derived. Psychology isn't as guilty of this as Sociology. But social sciences will often make a hypothesis, do the experiment to see if it fits the data, and then if it fits, the conclusion is announced like it's some open-and-shut case. Little effort to refute the point. However, I imagine the scientific method behind the scenes is much more rigorous than it appears. Media and popular coverage of social sciences is, needless to say, completely without standard to the point of being more often garbage than useful. Here is an unprofessional example of the sort of language I've heard: "Studies show, men like women who are nice, solidifying the hypothesis that men's primary motive is domination and that they seek the submission of others." Then every psych textbook from here to Australia lists it as fact. Despite the fact that almost any narrative can be made up to fit the data. Including, perhaps, "people just like nice people because they are nice." The strength of a theory doesn't come from its ability to fit data. Plenty of other theories can fit the same data. If other theories can fit the data, the theory is not strong. Therefore you need to do more and more testing to create greater and more varied data, and then fit the data better than competing theories.