Psychology, like sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, indeed even economics is a social science as all involve human behavior. This means that research in these fields are primarily, but not exclusively, qualitative.
Physics, chemistry, and geology are physical sciences, as these fields are concerned with physical phenomena. This means that research in these fields is primarily quantitative.
Life sciences are a mix of both as they deal with living organisms that are not necessarily human, therefore research may be either primarily quantitative or qualitative depending upon what subbranch one is researching. For example, biochemistry is very quantitative while nature studies are more descriptive.
Sciences have models of reality where such models are to be tested through research to determine validity regardless of whether that research is either qualitative or quantitative.
Professions, such as medicine, engineering, accounting, the law, or even dare I say librarianship, are not sciences as these fields do not use a single overriding model to describe reality but rather use the findings of all pertinent sciences in order to develop a code of best practices which may vary from one situation to another.
In other words, scientists must address the model, or prevailing theories within each field, either to support or contradict. Professionals (in the narrow sense) are not as concerned with the theories as they are in taking such findings and applying them to specific situations which may be too diverse in nature for any single model to properly address.
Science requires models of reality, professions are based upon human judgment.
Psychiatry (as in Freud etc.) is a profession. Psychology is a social science.
I hope this helps clarify why any past psychoanalytic theorists are not necessarily scientists and therefore their speculations are not necessarily science.
™ Version 4.2
