Why do we need to bother with repeatable experiments for social sciences? You've read Heidegger, it seems ("who is fucking brilliant if you can get through his

Why do we need to bother with repeatable experiments for social sciences? You've read Heidegger, it seems ("who is fucking brilliant if you can get through his ridiculous prose"). We are already geworfen into this world, a world that consists of Mitsein. This is your own Dasein, which is a fact, because it is the apriori of your Sein and first enables you to ask any of the questions you ask. Heidegger sees ontology as more fundamental, more basic than any of the sciences, because they only describe the Wie of Dasein, not Sein itself. We don't "need to have a fucking clue" why things happen, because we are already involved in them either way. If you indeed subscribe to Heidegger, then none of these questions are primary questions, they are questions that you can only concern yourself with after you have understood the conditions and structures of your own Sein. There is a good reason Sein und Zeit is a fragment, an aborted solution for the problem of ontology. Heidegger himself notices that his line of enquiry does not solve the overall problem of ontology, despite his optimistic start. Perhaps therein lies part of the reason why ontology has been seen rather sceptically by many of the people who followed him?