Quote Originally Posted by Sinfix_15 View Post
My argument isnt that psychology is invalid, simply that it's far behind what we commonly recognize as science. The degree of uncertainty and interpretation is much greater in psychology.
A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.

It wouldnt. I know precisely how fire/gas works and can predict and measure every result.
The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.

I dont. Which leads me to another question, how does psychology account for belief systems? whats true to you might not be true to me.
You take belief out of the equation.

And you can determine the validity of emotions to what percentage of accuracy?
As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests