Chapter one of the Lilienfield textbook was about the common misconceptions in psychology. Many people live under the delusion that psychology is based solely on intuition and common sense, when in fact it involves science that is based on authentic research and hard facts.
This emphasis on science in psychology really struck me. The main purpose was that it was supposed to prevent bias and give it legitimacy in contrast to pseudoscience. I felt that many of the claims were correct, but I did feel after reading it, that the chapter was trying to portray that science was the end all to biases and the only way to tell fact from fiction. While this may help, there are still many things that can't be proved by science and experimentation like the existence of love or that George Washington was a real person, but this doesn't make them any less true. In some sense I felt that it was emphasizing that that elements psychology that didn't follow the "scientific method" were not useful and prone to bias.
You make a very good point about the book. It does glorify science as the only way of knowing that is valid.