Feynman is great, and I&#x27;d add Meehl&#x27;s paradox: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fisme.science.uu.nl&#x2F;staff&#x2F;christianb&#x2F;downloads&#x2F;meehl1967.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fisme.science.uu.nl&#x2F;staff&#x2F;christianb&#x2F;downloads&#x2F;me...</a><p>A lot of the research that relies on null hypothesis significance testing really is lousy. But it is not just a matter of sloppiness, it&#x27;s also a function of the area of study. For example, there is a lot of evidence that people who had a bad childhood and little economic opportunity are more likely to commit crime. Is the study of that phenomenon not science just because a sociologist is unable to mechanistically predict that if your mother didn&#x27;t read you bed-time stories, you are guaranteed to rob a neighborhood store, at the age of 23.2 years old? Is research into cancer drugs not science because we can&#x27;t predict beforehand if the drug will help a little or a lot, even though we know of the causal mechanism that should make the drug effective?