You could also try to answer to the arguments of harry8, who gave you polite and well-written points, that you consciously ignored and resorted to name-calling ("you're heavily clueless about what psychology is") when you have absolutely no element to back your claim.
>Fuck me, but it's funny when detractors claim that psychology is full of unscientific behaviour, while they're way overgeneralising the entire field on a subsection of it.
What I mean by filled is that this subsection (which exists in any field, even mathematics) is an important fraction of this particular field. And before you bring this up: I read a lot of important papers in the field, and they were all below my expectations, which were admittedly not very high. I came to think that the "journal of irreproducible results" is one the most serious publications in soft sciences.
>Apparently arguments become stronger when you add "fuck" qualifiers
Fuck me!