Part of the problem, again, is that these entire
concepts aren't traditionally "scientific" because they are trying to explain the behavior of humans who often behave in untestable, unpredictable, complex ways. We want to insist, for example, that psychiatry is (at least somewhat) more rigorous and thus valid than sociology, but usually it's not:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...rs-have-names/
Any science based on the symptoms, outward behavior, and self-reporting of its subjects will always be hand-waving at best. We don't have to ask the bacteria
why it infected us, only how to kill it--which means it's a little disingenuous for those folks to mock the people who are trying to answer much harder and more sophisticated questions for their lack of answers. It's like, "Well, *I* can add, so why can't *you* prove string theory?"