In subjects where you never had to put your credibility where your mouth is - the data says whatever you’d like it to say.
Not to butcher Karl Popper early on Monday morning, but a very good guideline for whether a subject area is scientific is if the prediction it makes are falsifiable. If I propose a theory then I should be able to tell you which test result(s) would prove theory wrong.(I know there are critiques of Popper and falsifiability so I’m not presenting it as the be-all-and-end-all of scientific-ness, just a useful yard stick.)
The problem with that heuristic is more basic than Popperian philosophy. It's that researchers are happy to present falsifiable claims that are in fact then later falsified, but the falsifications don't get published by journals or advertised by the press, and university employers don't care that their employees are making false claims.
Not to butcher Karl Popper early on Monday morning, but a very good guideline for whether a subject area is scientific is if the prediction it makes are falsifiable. If I propose a theory then I should be able to tell you which test result(s) would prove theory wrong.(I know there are critiques of Popper and falsifiability so I’m not presenting it as the be-all-and-end-all of scientific-ness, just a useful yard stick.)