i know you said that, but the two problems are not of equivelant status. Besides, I did point out already that there is more understanding of the nature of gravity than the nature of behavioral conditioning.
Yes, there are plenty of theories, some of them demonstrable. But none of the grand ones, say, of a comparable order of Newton's laws or Einstein's relativity, are even testable, because they rely on making up what the motivator is. the arguments around theories (like Attachment, Freud's psycho-sexual, or Erickson's psycho-social theories) proceed on the basis, essentially, of what is agreeable to the community and what people think is reasonable. That's not inherently wrong, especially if you're a Kuhnian, but it does show a lack of discussion about evidence and observable data.
which, in a nutshell, is why people will say it's a "junk" science. Because the theories start with observable data, but don't continue with them. Or, when the do continue with them, there is no way to gain the observable data the theories predict.