Psychologists spend an alarming amount of time trying to justify that they are scientists. The psychology of that isn't the focus of this forum post, though other social sciences don't seem caught up in it: Anthropology gave up calling itself science and sociologists only make a half-hearted effort, archaeologists don't much care what you call them.

But psychologists are really in a tizzy about being in the science buildings rather than the humanities ones (though they are most often in the humanities buildings, quite literally). 

A year or so ago, Alex Berezow at Real Clear Science wrote a piece responding to a psychologist who laid out the case that psychology was science and noting that the psychologist's definition of science was so broad that the word science was bordering on meaningless - everyone who analyzes data is therefore a scientist, Berezow said.  The knives came out for Alex - psychologists even called him a 'conservative' over his USA Today article, and you know psychologists mean business when that happens - in the social sciences, calling someone a conservative is along the lines of an 'I slept with your mother' insult.

A blogger on the Scientific American network dredged it up again recently - and the piece was earnest and indignant and well-written and it completely missed the point. 

Discover blogger Neuroskeptic takes a more rational approach, writing:
Whether psychology is true, that’s the big question – and one best broken down into chunks, because it’s a big field. I am concerned that much of psychology (and other fields) is not true. My blog is full of criticisms of particular claims in psychology.

But I’m not concerned – or interested – in whether it’s ‘science’.
He makes the point that astrology can call itself science using the really broad definition of 'we analyze statistics' - but it isn't true.

And maybe the time of psychologists would be better spent being methodical and rigorous and, well, true, rather than agonizing over whether or not they can fit under the science umbrella. 

What do people here think?  Is being true more important than being called science?