Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
But what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when only limestone is available? Or what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when it moves close to the border of an enemy? Clearly, it's not as simple as just one problem. There are a myriad of variables involved in planning to build, building, and reproducing an aqueduct. No two aqueducts are exactly the same, just as no two minds are exactly the same. That also goes for neurologists.
Just like one method of making the aqueduct stronger may be to widen the base for one project, but using that same technique on a different project would fail because it's being built on an area that has groundwater and the weight would make it sink.
|
I was going to make the exact point that
xepherys did: in engineering, one must show that one's product will work before going into production. One can waste time, money, and at its worst, lives in even in the simplest of tasks. The experience of those before set up acceptable standards that will work.
The same can be said for psych'. My opinion follows. It can either be the young age of serious psych' science and research or the complexity of the body and brain, but decisions made even under the most careful scrutiny cannot be guaranteed yet in psych' science. This is why I do not perceive it to be an "exact science". Exact can be debated, but like I said earlier- Newtonian mechanics worked damned fine to get men to the moon.