No, it's not "talkings". Definitons of science are not based on replication/reproducibility.
Harder one, Popper's, says that a theory must provide a verifiable/falsifiable prediction, and it should be correct. (Problem is, there are too many probabilistic things, so you must lower the bar, by checking error rate/margin.) But not everything is verifiable or falsifiable strictly to this definition.
Then it's Kuhn's definition: a systematic observation and description of nature phoenomenons in own strict terms. Anthropology and sociology are exactly in this department.
Just an example what discovery sociologists made in mid-XX century: poor people tend to learn habits that lead them to risky and reckless behavior, stop them from getting education, etc. (What's the cause is another big talk, too broad for this thread.) And just talks by intellectuals would be like "they're just fools", "they have some genetic deficience", or maybe "they just haven't money, with enough money they'd be fine". That's talks.
Popular psychology that drops broad and seemingly profound judgements and commands, but that have nothing of substance -- that is talks too.
Thank you for a thoughtful response! I always used to have some suspicions about my opinion on psy* studies. I used to search any systematic observations here and I have found exactly one knowledge bomb - Weber-Fechner law [1]
You gave me examples which are not even defend psy* fields as a scientific ones because your examples are from economic fields (I made pro-psy* argumentation here reasonably better). But one systematic observation per all the field is not enough to build a science. It is enough to build religion. Do you want a proof that psy* is a religion? Everything in psy* which is neither neuro-physiology nor economy nor philosophy nor talkings nor [1] nor palliative medicine is... a legal enforcement.
Harder one, Popper's, says that a theory must provide a verifiable/falsifiable prediction, and it should be correct. (Problem is, there are too many probabilistic things, so you must lower the bar, by checking error rate/margin.) But not everything is verifiable or falsifiable strictly to this definition.
Then it's Kuhn's definition: a systematic observation and description of nature phoenomenons in own strict terms. Anthropology and sociology are exactly in this department.
Just an example what discovery sociologists made in mid-XX century: poor people tend to learn habits that lead them to risky and reckless behavior, stop them from getting education, etc. (What's the cause is another big talk, too broad for this thread.) And just talks by intellectuals would be like "they're just fools", "they have some genetic deficience", or maybe "they just haven't money, with enough money they'd be fine". That's talks.
Popular psychology that drops broad and seemingly profound judgements and commands, but that have nothing of substance -- that is talks too.