Real science is just about universal, whereas non-science varies with geography and fashion.
I'd be happier with "real phsychologists" if they were closer to the "real science" end of the spectrum. More like, for example, neuro-scientists, and less like psychiatrists.
Seems to me this story is about someone looking for real neuro-science and not getting enough of it. Whether that's the right quest is another matter: I don't know enough to know.
You're using "universal" in a sense that is unfair. Science isn't universal in the sense that any finding must apply globally while ignoring contextual factors. There all sorts of ways in which differing geography, cultural practices, genetics, environmental factors, prevailing diet, etc., etc., can and do create differences in observed diseases. It's unfair and wrong to say that something is unscientific because it manifests in some places but not in others.
Hm, don't think so. Real sciences such as maths, physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc apply globally and, indeed, beyond globally. The science of genetics is global even though genes vary with geography. Real science is also consistent over time, even though it changes when new information is added.
This is different from, say, religion, fashion, and psychiatry.
I'd be happier with "real phsychologists" if they were closer to the "real science" end of the spectrum. More like, for example, neuro-scientists, and less like psychiatrists.
Seems to me this story is about someone looking for real neuro-science and not getting enough of it. Whether that's the right quest is another matter: I don't know enough to know.