Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations.

I was trying to say something different than that. What I was trying to say was: The definition of a scientific theory is something that can be tested via experimentation. Whether or not Newton's theories of gravitation were partially disproved isn't the point. The point is that they could be tested with experimentation, therefore they were scientific theories. In science, that which is disproved by experimentation is discarded, and work begins on coming up with a new theory to explain the observations.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

No, I'm simply defending my statement that MBTI isn't scientific. I agree that just because something isn't scientific doesn't mean it's not real or not valuable. I was just defending my statement.

I think my main problem with MBTI is that it's a pseudoscience that's trying really hard to look scientific, when it's not really science. That happens to be one of my hot buttons. MBTI isn't a science, it's just a set of copyrighted multiple-choice tests based on some of Jung's ideas. That's why I'm lumping it in with astrology. I agree that it's got a lot more real research under its belt than astrology ever will. Its origins are based on observations and statistical correlation, not on carnival tricks like the Forer effect. I'll give it that. But in the end, it still reads like a set of horoscopes, Forer effect and all, and it's still not genuinely scientific.