do you think psycology a science or just an art?

That experiment, in my humble opinion, simply showed that also animals can: expect something, foresee consequences from premises, and obviously they can learn... In a sentence, Pavlov showed us that animals can think even if they are wordless. So the interesting to me is that this scientist provided a sort of anticipate response (indeed a negative one) to Wittgenstein's famous argument which I would trivially synthesize as: the origin of men's thought comes from the possibility of speaking. I don't deny the possibility to learn by ourself from experience or from someone else's efforts (we gave the name of 'conditioning' to Pavlov's efforts), but I think, following in this the behavioristic point of view, that we can't say what happens in the black-box of our soul-mind, so we just have to consider facts, actions, premises and consequences. So we can't make forecasts really based on our knowledge of human mind, but just bet on qualitative phenomena deriving from a sort of collection of chronicles of human behavior, an approach I would like to define Humanistic and not really scientific. A qualitative, and sometimes arbitrary approach which can be only partially statistically based, giving very unpredictable results, since you have to combine so many variables and parameters risking to make a great mess... mathematically speaking. An approach which I would euphemistically define 'not completely scientific' in such methods, since it bases many of its conclusions not on a quantitative theory: just on descriptive statistics and on the criterion of analogy (!!!). Hamlet says words like these (which I quote on heart and back translate from my language, so --- forgive everything I'm going to lose in translation) : there are more things between sky and earth than all those your philosophy can only imagine...

So you are saying that psychology is an art? The psychologists out there are not going to like you. :)