Quote:

**AlwaysUsesAnivia**:

Judging by your remark about philosophy, I don't think you read my last comment quite carefully enough. If you think that mechanical deduction and rote processes are science then you have a fundamental misconception of science on a philosophical level. You also seem to be wholly ignorant with regards to psychology as a field of study, and with its methods in particular.

The amount of ignorance here is so profound in depth and so wide in scope that it's difficult to know where to begin educating you. I recommend reading Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, or perhaps The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Both works provide insight into what science is by examining how it is conducted both by the individual and collectively within the field. The former is more accessible, but the latter is arguably more influential.

Consider yourself honored, or annoyed, but I am circumventing my second ban just to respond to you.

The concept of formal science lies in its structure: There are axioms and consistent, logical operations i.e. ways to manipulate the axioms to preserve consistency and get new statements.

The reason why Psychology et al. aren't exact sciences is that their laws rely on statistical inferences implying some probability of them being entirely incorrect, while every consistent statement in an exact science holds EXACTLY.

In fact, it is impossible for an inference to ever be as strong without it essentially being a statement in an exact science:

From a probabilistic point of view, the exact statement must hold true for every value in the sample space, while the strongest an inference could theoretically get is with probability 1, which is a weaker statement, since the set of measure zero need not be empty.

Furthermore, by the virtue of it relying on a hypothesis, it is non-constructive (although there are consistent axioms in ZFC that are non-constructive as well), but that is something that plagues everything that requires empiricism.

In a nutshell, you use a looser definition of science than I do. By the way, neither of those are formal mathematical works and that is precisely what I am concerned with and nothing else.