I had a psychology professor mention, but only in passing (it wasn't a rant), that psychology tries to be a science, and indeed observations in formal texts were always supported by some study, sometimes even from rat behavior. So there is an attempt to make it science, and it is, but not to the extent of physics. The prof's opinion was that it would have been more productive to approach psychology from a philosophical perspective, rather than a scientific one.
Although, the area of philosophy and ideology are risky areas in which to seek for truth. Perhaps the human mind and all of its idiosyncrasies simply doesn't gravitate to truth. Who knows?
But in fact, I could list renowned practitioners in the field who flowered back in the days when I was studying this stuff, and they all built their methodologies on philosophical underpinnings. However, they didn't reject science, and there was a thread of continuity that ran through all their methods. Not that the shamans and faith healers didn't try to invade the field, but they were never taken seriously.
Philosophy can be useful, but it takes prudence and care, perhaps some scientific like constraints, less we end up putting our mental health in the hands of Deepak Chopra.