>>11143515Why isn't psychology considered a genuine branch of science ?
From papers I've read the authors are always competent, gathering large amounts of data and assessing it which usually ends with the formation of a clear correlation between two factors.
Maybe you could argue that early psychology was based off hypothetical ideas but modern psychology has a serious grounding in the pursuit of actual data now.
I'm seriously considering swapping my degree course to psychology, it's quite an interesting subject.
Or is it just a bunch of spackers giving it a bad name ?
