[miksumiksu]

Not all psych is as jurasic as you describe. For example cofnitive psychology has better theorios with more predictive power than personal psychology that is often picked at. Sure journals are flooded with underpowered studies and studies with very little links to theory, and there is still massive gaps in scientific knowledge but core consturcts are solid.

[godelski]

  > Not all psych is as jurasic as you describe.

Certainly. It's difficult to talk in general because there's always exceptions. I also think it's very easy to misunderstand my comment. I didn't think psych is useless. But science isn't so much about having the right answer as your confidence in your model of "the answer". It's not binary. My point is that when working in a field where it's very difficult to have high confidence to normalize it and become over confident in results because everyone else is working with similar levels. I have (and made) similar criticisms of my own field, ML.

  > core consturcts are solid.

  - which concepts?
  - how solid? 
  - how do you know they're solid?

You don't have to answer, this isn't a challenge. But these are questions every good scientist should be constantly asking about their own work and their own field. That's the "trust but verify" part. It's why every scientist should constantly challenge authority. Because replication is the foundation of science and you don't get that without the skepticism.