Science can only be as good as the people doing it.
The problem is that most papers, especially on very complicated topics, are not science and just serve the purpose of proving a point or helping someone's career.
Even without taking easy jabs at psychology (you would need full brain understanding of its inner workings and evolution over a lifetime, to have a 100% clear picture of what's happening - we probably have 0.0001% - it's all based on observations and interpretations), the reproducibility crisis is affecting a lot of areas.
Hopefully with more time and more people getting involved in the field, we'll get more and more science.
If I think about nutrition / fitness, between 40-20 years ago and now we made great progress: we went from "Fats are bad and make you fat" (pure propaganda to sell processed sugars), "BULK on a 4000 diet" to any video of Jeff Nippard quoting incredibly detailed studies about minutiae of nutrition and building muscle.
The problem is that most papers, especially on very complicated topics, are not science and just serve the purpose of proving a point or helping someone's career.
Even without taking easy jabs at psychology (you would need full brain understanding of its inner workings and evolution over a lifetime, to have a 100% clear picture of what's happening - we probably have 0.0001% - it's all based on observations and interpretations), the reproducibility crisis is affecting a lot of areas.
Hopefully with more time and more people getting involved in the field, we'll get more and more science.
If I think about nutrition / fitness, between 40-20 years ago and now we made great progress: we went from "Fats are bad and make you fat" (pure propaganda to sell processed sugars), "BULK on a 4000 diet" to any video of Jeff Nippard quoting incredibly detailed studies about minutiae of nutrition and building muscle.