I don't think there's no value in making observations of human psychology. I was arguing that RCT does not address the epstemological problem, since the subjects observe the outcomes.
I don't think that there are no properties to observe about humans, but simply doing science isn't sufficient. You need to add in some math. Game theory and computer science come to mind as disciplines which are also not science which can be used to reason that an observation might be invariant with respect to repeated observation. Experiment alone is not sufficient to establish this.
I don't think that there are no properties to observe about humans, but simply doing science isn't sufficient. You need to add in some math. Game theory and computer science come to mind as disciplines which are also not science which can be used to reason that an observation might be invariant with respect to repeated observation. Experiment alone is not sufficient to establish this.