[wordbank]

Also technical people are usually very arrogant in human sciences.

Just because psychology or art are not defined in formulas that doesn't mean they're easy. Quite opposite: they're so diverse that it's impossible to formalize them into strict laws.

[such_a_casual]

> they're so diverse that it's impossible to formalize them into strict laws.

More diverse than the stars in the sky? It's a bit rich to suggest that psychology and art can't be formulated into strict laws. Pop music and advertising are some great examples.

[rprospero]

You're right that psychology and art can be defined into strict formulas. In fact, they're much better at being put into strict formulas than most of astronomy. That's the main issue: when it comes to psychology and art, we significantly move the goal posts comparted to what we ask of physicists, and I say that as a research physicist.

As an example, I know practically nothing about psychology, having only taken a single intro semester of it at university. That said, from reading your post, I can already make the following claims:

You have a mass of 200kg ± 300kg. You have a temperature of 310K ± 3K. Your age is 60 years ± 55 years.

I'll let you pick any star in the sky. Can you tell me the mass, age, and temperature to the same accuracy?

[paulcole]

Exhibit A.

[such_a_casual]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVGpvzcHko