|
I haven't had the same experience with science as you have. I don't perceive a "better than you" attitude among scientists. I have seen scientists frustrated when people make scientific claims without any evidence.
Regarding your "Einstein" example, that does sound like lazy thinking - relying on an argument from authority. However, I may have acted similarly to the people you describe at one time or another. When I engage in the same argument over and over again without any logical resolution, I'm sometimes unwilling to do it again unless there is something new to talk about.
Regarding psychology, I find it difficult to paint the field of psychology with such a broad brush. I don't see a field desperate to be considered a science. I do see a field with a diversity of perspectives - some more scientific than others. I don't see a problem with requiring evidence.
Finally, what are the "upper echelons of the scientific community"? How are they like a street gang?
|