[[Science is testable]]. Scientific theories make predictions that are tested through experience (experiment or observation). But I don't think we yet know how to test many of our psychological theories. Most psychological studies seem to be testing behavior or psychological states. Both of which are problematic for establishing scientific rigor. The behavior of people is not mechanistic because [[People are creative]]. This makes testing human behavior often unreliable because their ideas (and therefore their behavior) can change in unpredictable ways. Another problem is that [[There is no such thing as explanationless theories]], so the tested behavior must be interpreted. And because people are creative, they may not be behaving for the reasons researchers think they are. Testing psychological states is scientifically dubious, because we don't yet understand psychological states enough to objectively measure them. Researchers instead use proxies for psychological states: self-assessments, observed behaviors, or assessments by third parties. Proxies can be used to make scientific measurements, however, we don't yet have an explanatory theory of how, why, and how accurate the proxy measures psychological states. "In genuine science, one can claim to have measured a quantity only when one has an explanatory theory of how and why the measurement procedure should reveal its value, and with what accuracy" ([[David Deutsch]]). Testing behavior and proxies of psychological states provide an illusion of science. These studies are then used to justify ideas: [[Psychology uses "science" to justify ideas]]. But [[Knowledge isn't justified]]. While most of psychology is unscientific, that doesn't mean we know nothing about psychology. [[Knowledge doesn't have to be scientific]]. [[Knowledge consists of good explanations]] and [[Good explanations solve problems]]. For example, psychology has created (and continues to iterate upon) useful explanations about what trauma is, how it's created, and how it can be healed. Creating and iterating upon explanations about topics like these are a large part of what I'm attempting to do here: [[Notes on healing and awakening]]. And those who are interested should continue to create explanations to grow our knowledge of psychology, but we shouldn't pretend it's science if it's not. This will turn off critical thinkers who can recognize bad epistemology.