What I'm trying to say is that you epically failed to interpret GGT's post, not that GGT was correct in her characterisation or her reasoning. I am, however, fairly sure her characterisation of those other disciplines as being "soft sciences" (which is not the same as "not real science") is one that many/most scientists and philosophers of science would consider--at first glance--to be relatively fair and accurate. Good luck trying to find remotely similar support for--or appreciation of--your retarded counter-example. That's not to say that consensus guarantees truth, of course, but it may help evaluate whether or not your counter-example is retarded (98% of hard scientists and philosophers of science would say that it is). In the future, when someone points out one of your epic failures to read and interpret a post (and it will happen many many times) feel free to just say "thanks, sorry, my bad" instead of thinking that you're being encouraged to spout more of the same stupid.