> It is more difficult to measure a human trait, than to measure a temperature. You might want to read up on the history of thermodynamics. It took decades to

> It is more difficult to measure a human trait, than to measure a temperature. You might want to read up on the history of thermodynamics. It took decades to figure out how to define and measure temperature. It's far more difficult to measure temperature than a human trait because one requires precise definition and modeling while the latter doesn't. > Why can't we study humans, what study of humans would take the place of Psychology? Neuroscience. Psychology is the easy way out to doing real science. > I'd say all those pointing to the successes of 'hard' sciences, have it easier. "Hard science" is more difficult because hard science has to testable via experiment. It isn't just a bunch of people agreeing to a consensus. > Isn't iterative improvement what all science is about? But psychology isn't iterative. It isn't improvement. 99% of psychology is not testable. The biggest critics of psychology are pyschologists themselves ( at least the honest ones ). Ask yourself why there are many competing schools of psychology. And then ask yourself why there is no scientific or experimental way to find the "right or correct school of psychology". Psychology today is as scientific as astrology was hundreds of years ago. Until telescopes and radio waves allowed us to peer into the cosmos and gave us astronomy. The lack of tools and modeling of the human brain is what's holding back the science of the brain ( neuroscience ). Psychology is just modern day voodoo not different than astrology.