That is a very interesting distinction to draw, and one would say quite valuable. However, if you examine psychology, you find that the so called "scientific" results are almost all culturally tainted. There is a presupposition in many tests that humanity fits some sort of broad generalised picture.

Facts are assumed about mind, (like it's existence), intelligence, stability, and about human behaviour. While psychology may throw up general trends, most sorts of social patterns, and mental actions evolve in accordance to laws that do not fit ordinary scientific reasoning. After all, people observe. We are not objects. We cannot reason intelligently about the nature of intelligence. Even presuming that thoughts exist, no one is yet able to show that a person's thoughts are generated by them, and not simply experienced. A fine distinction to be sure, but a crucial one, and one that no scientific experiment in psychology will ever be able to solve.

If then this is the case, we must accept that the basis of psychology is no more sound than the basis of psychoanalysis, which as stated above is arbitrary. As such can we really draw a distinction between the two?