Funny thing about this question is that Marxism seeks to be scientific to the point that it's really the basic foundation of the ideology. Marx was at the forefront of what would be called sociology today along with his pioneering economic and historical theories. Determining what is true and pushing the boundaries of where we can say that there is predictable truth is vital to Marxism.

So if you think that there is such a thing as misinformation on psychology and not merely physics and chemistry and math, then the Marxist contends that we should continue to make a science out of as much as we can, being careful not to declare something a "science" that is not adequately developed but also not shying away from considering a category of event in the physical world something that can potentially be analyzed scientifically.

A favorite example of mine is that somewhere in the preambles of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels goes on a tangent about science and the evolution of paradigms over time. During his own age, life was often considered to be founded on what would later be coined Elan Vital ("vital impetus" or "vital force"), such that the presence or absence of this nearly-unquantifiable thing was what separated a living body from a fresh corpse. Engels rejected this notion and claimed -- as some scientists and philosophers certainly did at the time -- that there is no evidence for living organisms having in them anything that isn't irreducible to physical phenomena (setting aside the body-mind problem, which is a slightly different domain). Because of this, he says that there is no reason to believe -- and great reason to think it virtually inevitable -- that people will be able to create living organisms whole-cloth out of non-living material in laboratories one day! Of course, he turned out to be right, but the clarity of reasoning to see that in the mid-19th century is very impressive to me.