Psychology Isn't Science

Just plug in "political science" for "psychology" at the piece, and Alex Berezow might as well be explaining some of the philosophical debates my field. See, "Why psychology isn't science":

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.

RELATED: Interestingly, this piece, "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," an example of experimental political science, provided the background to some really ugly  left-wing intimidation during the Wisconsin recall. See Althouse, "'We have seen the power of a single mailer disclosing the voting behavior of oneself and one’s neighbors'," and "'We're sending this mailing to you and your neighbors to publicize who does and does not vote'."