The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.
It is physically impossible to repeat any social science expermient. You can never get the same people back in the same room under the same conditions without access to the new information they have gained since the first time. I'd recommend you pick up Human Action, since it is the foundation of modern classical liberalism.
I'm aware of that problem. Its why I mentioned the lacking technology hampering us considerably by requiring them to be reveal the information to us through their own perspective and lens.
We are also massively hampered by ethical red tape. In needing consent, making them aware of the experiment in many cases, not causing distress or harm, and all sorts of other massively limiting variables. I won't say its wrong to restrict that, but there is a reason the most famous "studies" all came about before such were in place and real psycho experiments could take place.
I will take that recommendation to heart though. If I ever catch up on my reading list.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.
I'll say in economics I am not deeply versed. My point was entirely in defense of the social sciences.
But I am much in the camp of nature being highly triumphant over nurture, so Praxeology would be a major disagreement with me.
It is physically impossible to repeat any social science expermient. You can never get the same people back in the same room under the same conditions without access to the new information they have gained since the first time. I'd recommend you pick up Human Action, since it is the foundation of modern classical liberalism.
I'm aware of that problem. Its why I mentioned the lacking technology hampering us considerably by requiring them to be reveal the information to us through their own perspective and lens.
We are also massively hampered by ethical red tape. In needing consent, making them aware of the experiment in many cases, not causing distress or harm, and all sorts of other massively limiting variables. I won't say its wrong to restrict that, but there is a reason the most famous "studies" all came about before such were in place and real psycho experiments could take place.
I will take that recommendation to heart though. If I ever catch up on my reading list.