>
> bothered by the basic assumption that psychology and or cognitive science
> can profile, measure, or even asses any kind of thinking. I assume this
> assumption is itself in deep contestation within the field.
I don't believe it is contested at all in psychology that 'thinking' (or at least answering - the behavioral outcome of thinking) can be assessed. If this cannot be measured, then it seems the tools to measure it (statistics) would be false - as well as its foundations - validity (content and construct validity), reliability (inter-rater and test-retest reliability) and probability itself.
Why would probability be any less valid when applied to psychology than to physics?