The issue you're thinking of a hard vs soft sciences. In chemistry, you need exactly 8 electrons to complete a valance shell. In psychology, we know that homosexual individuals have been shown to have a cell density in the lateral hypothalamus more like that of heterosexual women. (Implying biological reaction to male pheromones rather than female). p=0.049.
That "more like" language is what some people don't like. They want to know that with 40ul of this and 10nl of that, they will always come out with C24H19.
To compare, medicine is an inexact science. It uses the same language as most of psychology. We may give you 30mg of a medication hoping to result in peak plasma levels of Xmg. But if anesthesiology is any example, that rarely works out. There are far too many factors to create anything perfectly exact or predictable.
For another comparison, what we know about the deepest parts of outer space isn't from seeing the object, but from measuring the bending of light that passes it; the magnetic pull of the assumed object bends the light. So we guess something must be there to do the pulling. Kinda reminds me of how we think of a god living on a cloud. "Something must be there, because..."
· 4 weeks ago