As I've written more than once here: it's are harder to experiment upon than physics. Society/individual behavior is also way more complex than e.g. rheology or organic chemistry, and doesn't submit itself to lab research.
But that's not the only problem. The problem is that people try it anyway. They have some hypothesis within a theoretical framework which is embedded in other frameworks, none of which is proven. How could they be? But, they set up an experiment anyway, and (usually after a couple of attempts) they find something that can reject H0. Then they publish an article stating that their theoretical framework is a fact.
There is so much wrong in this process, even ignoring the manipulation of the stimuli and conditions, and the statistical procedures, yet the theory has a good chance to make school and become the subject of research in dozens of psych departments, each contributing articles to the literature about it. After a while, an essentially flawed theory enters the handbooks.
Then, if you want to make a name for yourself as a researcher, and you need publications, you can simply attack older theories. They'll crumble like cookies, you get your publications, and the cycle restarts.
And as critical as I am of psychology, other social sciences have even lower empirical standards. Educational sciences, sociology, linguistics all have very little to show for a century of research. And that's ignoring disciplines like political sciences or history.
But that's not the only problem. The problem is that people try it anyway. They have some hypothesis within a theoretical framework which is embedded in other frameworks, none of which is proven. How could they be? But, they set up an experiment anyway, and (usually after a couple of attempts) they find something that can reject H0. Then they publish an article stating that their theoretical framework is a fact.
There is so much wrong in this process, even ignoring the manipulation of the stimuli and conditions, and the statistical procedures, yet the theory has a good chance to make school and become the subject of research in dozens of psych departments, each contributing articles to the literature about it. After a while, an essentially flawed theory enters the handbooks.
Then, if you want to make a name for yourself as a researcher, and you need publications, you can simply attack older theories. They'll crumble like cookies, you get your publications, and the cycle restarts.
And as critical as I am of psychology, other social sciences have even lower empirical standards. Educational sciences, sociology, linguistics all have very little to show for a century of research. And that's ignoring disciplines like political sciences or history.