Are Social Sciences Inevitably Pseudo-Sciences?
Social science is a science unlike natural science. There are no constant variables and no way to conduct the experiments with accuracy. To some extent social science may even be considered a pseudo-science. With no specific grounds to base the theory on, social science is difficult to conduct experiments for. The changing environment and having interaction with the subjects can always lead to a different result each time.
The scientists of social science believe that underneath our uniqueness and individuality there is a constant pattern of human behaviour. We see this in everyday life, probably without even noticing it. In general we tend to treat men and women differently according to gender, although this may seem discriminating it is the truth. If it is possible to study other living organisms as a whole, then why shouldn't we be able to do so with humans?
According to many scientists, pseudo-science fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method. Theories may be used without first conducting the proper experiment to assert them or without them being verified. The results stated may not be reproducible and this is where I find social science to be related with pseudo-science.
If you were to conduct the same experiment on the same individual twice the experiment would fail to produce the same result twice. This is where the problem lies in social science. There is always the interaction between the subject and the scientist. The person being experimented on can change the result with will if he knows what the result should be.
It is also impossible to measure social data in numerical form as you can in natural science. You cannot take ethical matters and write them with a number as you can for other sciences. Without being able to do so we cannot calculate our results in social experiments and this brings another point not being able to have the same result...