I don't think this posted before, apologies if it is a duplicate: I'm pretty sure the cause of this physics tangent was my assertion that psychology is no worse off than any of the hard sciences in the "unsolved problems" department. Hence, if we think physicists and chemists and biologists have solved scientific problems, then psychologists have done so as well. In any of these sciences you can push to the point of the unknown, but you need to wade through a lot of well established stuff to get there.
One big problem for psychology as a field is that psychologists still have massive physics envy, while not seeming to have any idea how physics actually works. This is much like the young girl who hates social functions and public scrutiny, but desperately wants to be a princess; she has bought the storybook/kids vision of princesshood, and has no idea what the job is really like. There is plenty of work in psychology that has answered questions through the scientific process as definitively as any other field. There are also constructs that could probably be done away with. There are also unknowns. That is the normal state of a well functioning science. That's my assertion at least. Eric
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
