The problem with the social sciences is not that they lack the rigor and repeatability of physics or chemistry. It would be unfair to expect this kind of precision when studying humankind, and it would be foolish to abandon the attempt just because they can't match the accuracy or technique of "hard" science. Psychology, sociology, philosophy, cultural anthropology and economics must be studied even if our tools are not as refined as are mathematics and scientific method, if for no other reason that we must do the best we can to understand ourselves.

My objection to these "sciences", and what I think elicits such a knee-jerk reaction from "hard science" weenies is that the practitioners of these disciplines often pass themselves off AS IF they were working with the precision and rigor of physics. They ignore that many of these fields have no all-encompassing or organizing theories or philosophies, underlying them, that practioners often disagree violently on even the most fundamental concepts central to their areas of study, and that the fields are rife with controversy to a degree the physical sciences haven't seen in centuries. And they are constantly in flux and subject to fashion, much more so than say, physics, where growth occurs mostly at the frontiers.

Again, this is nothing to be ashamed of due to the nature of the studies and the immaturity of our knowledge about these issues; but this should be made clear from the start. As it is, theories of the social and behavioral sciences drive many of our political and economic organizations, have influence in our arts and literature, and are incoporated into legislation and legal precedent. Personally, I find it absolutely astonishing that psychiatrists are often asked to testify as expert witnesses at criminal trials. The soft sciences are simply not ready to wield this kind of influence, and they have not reached the level of development required to authoritatively steer public or civil thought. The term pseudoscience may be a bit harsh, but it can be used fairly when these fuzzy concepts are used to set policy, as opposed to their correct use as an aid to contemplation and introspection.

The growth of "social science" type thinking has also deprecated some of our most valuable existing weapons and proven tools for the study of the human condition. I have always felt that the arts are a terrific scalpel to dissect and expose the human soul in all its variety, indeed, I think that literature in particularly has taught us much more about our own psyches than psychology ever did. The visual and performance arts can teach us things no science or technology can, and not only the human condition, but human perception, consciousness, emotion and behavior in general has always been the province of the artist. And they've done a much better job than our behavioralists have.

Great art teaches us about ourselves, and it survives over thousands of years, instantly recognized for its insight by succeeding grenerations. I don't think our behavioral scientists are anywhere near that kind of record yet.

I would feel much more comfortable with Shakespeare, Homer or Cervantes in the witness box than Freud, Jung, or Joyce Brothers.