Is psychology a real science?

Psychology doesn't have an agreed upon central body of knowledge

Question: Is psychology a real science?
Position‹2 of 3›: Psychology is not a real science
Argument‹3 of 3: Psychology doesn't have an agreed upon central body of knowledge

Unlike each of the hard sciences, psychology fails to deliver a concrete body of knowledge that is universally agreed upon by professionals in the field.

The argument

Psychology lacks what true sciences are built upon: a universally accepted body of knowledge which describes how the world works. It also fails to yield a definition that is universally agreed upon. Psychology relies, instead, on following the scientific method to a fault. Professionals in the field are focused mainly on gathering data and statistics, which does not equal knowledge.

Premises

[P1]True sciences are built on a universally accepted body of knowledge describing how the world works, which psychology lacks, also failing to yield a universally agreed definition. [P2] Instead psychology follows the scientific method to a fault, focusing on gathering data and statistics, which does not amount to knowledge. [C] Therefore, because it has no agreed central body of knowledge, psychology is not a real science.

Counter-arguments

Psychology is defined as "the study of mind and behavior." Scientists in the field of psychology have generated insights into animal and human behaviors from the data which has been gathered. These insights constitute a body of knowledge upon which many experts in the field agree.

Rejecting the premises

{Rejecting P1] Psychology has built up a repository of insights which are generally agreed upon by scientists in the field. [Rejecting P2] Psychology is defined as "the study of mind and body."

Proponents cited

Gregg Henriques
“In technical terms, I am claiming that the core problem with the field is that it is “pre-paradigmatic," which means that psychology completely lacks agreement from the experts about what it is and what it is about, what its foundational theories or even frameworks are, what its key findings are, and how it fits with the rest of the body of scientific knowledge. The fact that psychology has been around now for almost 150 years and remains pre-paradigmatic is undeniably a very serious threat to the field's status as a real science.”
Paul Meehl
“theories rise and decline, come and go, more as a function of baffled boredom than anything else; and the enterprise shows a disturbing absence of that cumulative character that is so impressive in disciplines like astronomy, molecular biology and genetics.”