"Science" is not a body of thought. It is a method of discovery. Various fields may use or ignore the principles of Science to varying degrees, and at various times. Psychology, a "soft science", is proof of this. Some leaders in the field (Sigmund Freud) were integrating their observations into a philosophical construct. Others (B.F. Skinner) were heavy on procedure, and properly designed experiments.
Repeatability, peer review, predictive value were of first-order importance for those leaders of Psychology, as was limiting thought to the observable. So, yes, you are right to look at a Psychologist with super-skepticism, wanting to see the research. But it's silly to outright disregard it all, because "psuedoscience".
Hard sciences deal with simpler things than soft sciences. That's why they're exact. The "hardest" Science is Physics, which deals with the most fundamental structures of the universe. These structures have no sub-parts, and so their behavior is very well characterized- mathematically. Subatomic particles form atoms, and atoms form molecules, and molecules form tissues, and tissues form brains, and so and so forth. So, when you take a "soft" science like Psychology or Sociology, you're talking about the collective action of a ton of sub-parts. That isn't very concise, direct, or simple. It's impossible to account for them all, precisely. That's exactly why Physicists can't really account for the behavior of more than a few particles at a time. The math is just too difficult.
So, the remarkable thing is that there are still things that you can say about the behavior of those systems, in aggregate. For example, the temperature of your blood. That prediction will be statistical in nature, described as an average with error bars. Sometimes, very wide error bars, but it can still be useful. Do you remember what else has many parts in action?
Psychology. The same rules apply. The data can most certainly be useful.