Not true at all. Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior.
One parallel is that humans were able to observe and accurately predict the movement of the stars before they ever knew what stars were. In fact humans were able to use stars for navigation long before anyone had the slightest idea of the actual physical nature of a star, or could offer any plausible explanation as to why a star moves a certain way.
Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. You can for example run brain scans for criminals and see if the psychopath brain pattern has higher incidence among prison populations (it definitely does).
Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do.
> Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior.
All right, let's submit your idea to a scientific thought experiment -- let's imagine we can do without any attempt to explain an observation, and call it science. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes I have cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over my patients until they get better. The treatment sometimes takes a week, but it always works. It's repeatable and reliable. Since psychologists don't have to explain their results, I don't have to either.
So -- where's my Nobel Prize?
Second example. I go outside and see little points of light in the night sky. I describe this -- I write a paper and say the night sky is filled with little points of light. Another person, who calls himself a scientist, says those points of light are actually distant thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, a claim that can be tested and potentially falsified. Is my observation science, or is his theory science?
(Observation by itself is not science -- empirically testable, falsifiable theories are required.)
> Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence.
Not in mind studies. The mind is not accessible to empirical observation. The brain is, the mind is not. This issue is separate from the issue of whether observation without explanation is science.
> Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do.
False. Psychology is not science unless and until empirical, falsifiable explanations are proposed and then tested, regardless of how many white lab coats and clipboards are on display.
Let's say I'm an astrologer and I'm really annoyed that people don't think my field is a science. So I hire a bunch of scientists who perform statistical studies, for example, how many people are Geminis and how many are Tauruses -- perfectly scientific, perfectly reliable. By doing this, have I made astrology a science? Why not? Some people claim this works for psychology, so why not for astrology too?
One parallel is that humans were able to observe and accurately predict the movement of the stars before they ever knew what stars were. In fact humans were able to use stars for navigation long before anyone had the slightest idea of the actual physical nature of a star, or could offer any plausible explanation as to why a star moves a certain way.
Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. You can for example run brain scans for criminals and see if the psychopath brain pattern has higher incidence among prison populations (it definitely does).
Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do.