Huh, no. It isn't. Just because we don't have a way to explain something doesn't mean this or that explanation is valid. At a fundamental level it fails to meet the criteria of truth. Period. If you're not arguing that point you have to concede. It either meets the criteria or it doesn't.

In some cases Neuroscience is science, generally not "behavioral neuroscience," and it look at those physical mechanisms. But just because when you look at those physical underlying mechanisms you can't see how it all fits together (or often times psychological phenomena are too poorly defined to study) doesn't mean psyco babble bullshit is valid. If you're not creating a mathematical model that uses predictive measurements of the thing you're claiming to understand to validate itself, it's not science. That is a necessary condition. Even the softest scientists (usually my peers in biology) unwittingly meet that criteria using logic, statistics, or some impressions of geometry and they know to be very, very careful about what they claim (and usually they use methods and math from from other areas like physics anyway).