Just for clarification, Meteorology is not classical physics. It is in the Geophysics realm and still has many unknowns. It is a progressive science. Once ALL the unknowns are discovered and computer models will be able to run on computers, I believe it will be possible to predict the weather to a very accurate degree. And I don't want to repeat myself but psychology will never be that accurate no matter how much it progresses.
So, you have faith (I use the term because you believe this in the absence of evidence) that the unknowns will be discovered in Meteorology? Why do you believe this? Others have called weather a "chaotic system"; do you disagree with them?
Right! and psychology can never be in the absolute certainty section whereas physics, biology, chemistry and others can.
So, do you have an a priori belief in free will? Why do you suggest that the unknowns are any less knowable here?
I'm not forgetting my error bars...ever. They are found in the experimental realm of my occupation. But my theoretical models have no error bars. They are theoretical based on well established theory proven to be absolute correct. For example, a field that I work in is electromagnetics. The Maxwell equations along with all other equations like Fresnel, Snell's law and others describe the theoretical world to the absolute degree. My errors arise when I experiment but I've covered that already before, a few posts back.
"I can use Rescorla & Wagner's equations to describe theoretical behavior. Of course, in the experimental realm, there are error bars." Cool! as long as I separate out the real world from the theoretical one, my theoretical predictions are perfect too!
In electromagnetics for example, as long as I have a strong enough computer, I can predict the outcome results to a tee (is that how you say it? I want to say very precise) because there are no unknowns in this field. It is just a complex system which should be taken care of by a strong enough computer system.
I don't know your area well enough, so could you please clarify one thing--when you say you can predict outcome results to a tee, are you making this claim for the theoretical world, or the experimental world? In the experimental world, do you have to make allowances for, say geophysical EMR, or sunspots, or whatever? (Again, I don't know your area, so if these are completely out in left field I apologize, and ask that if there actually are extraneous variables that are not under your experimental control, use those instead.)
Disclaimer--the "psychology" mentioned by Caius Textor earlier in this thread is not experimental psychology--it is theory-driven, not evidence-driven. This is not a "no true Scotsman" argument; there are clear differences between experimental psychology and the pop psychology promoting itself so well. There are areas of "psychology" where I will agree with you 100%--humanistic psych, for instance, will never be able to explain human behavior (in part because an axiomatic assumption of free will on their part precludes examination of relevant environmental variables, and because circularly inferred causes are reified, but can never be evidenced--imagine a physics that considers itself incomplete because it cannot locate in an object the source of the "desire to fall" that is part of gravity).
But I am under no illusions that physics is represented by "what the **** do we know?" And none should be under the illusion that experimental psychology is what you learn by watching Dr. Phil.
