Are you suggesting it's worse than food science?

Where does he suggest that?

How do you define "science"?

Not like this "scientist" at a reputable university. http://wjh.harvard.edu/~jmitchel/writing/failed_science.htm

> · Recent hand-wringing over failed replications in social psychology is largely pointless, because unsuccessful experiments have no meaningful scientific value.

> · Because experiments can be undermined by a vast number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any failed replication will always be that the replicator bungled something along the way. Unless direct replications are conducted by flawless experimenters, nothing interesting can be learned from them.

{edit: read the link. It's scary to read this stuff coming from a science PhD.}

Other psychologists have realised that there's a "crisis of replication" in psychology. But it's not just psychology, it affects other sciences (albeit to varying degrees) too.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...

Ok, but one thing is to say that there are bad scientists in the field of psychology, and another one is to say psychology is not a science at all. It's not (and it can't be) an "exact" science, but it's science all the same.

A Science makes testable hypotheses that are falsifiable. Economics and Psychology don't make falsifiable predictions.

When something goes wrong in either of those fields, they always have an explanation - they're never wrong. Economy didn't lift off in 2015 Q1? It was the weather. But we know the weather affects all Q1, can't they factor that into the prediction for Q1 numbers? No, because they want to be able to use the weather excuse.

Follow what they say and you will start to see the pattern of excuses. Every time they are sure something will work; then it doesn't work; then they claim they knew all along it wouldn't work, but this new solution will definitely work. Rinse, repeat.