We think about the potential and limits of science differently. We even "do" science quite differently.
The debate is obvious everywhere in psychology, including in these blogs. Some scientists of human nature believe we can not only explain the human condition, but we can actually predict what we might do (or not do) next.
Here's a colleague's limerick that pokes fun at one side of this debate.
the notion that humans are graphable
although laudable is really quite laughable
the assumptions in place
neglect complex space
and therefore it's just barely mathable
(Anonymous - computer scientist, librarian, Renaissance woman)
I'm looking forward to the limericks in reply ☺ (no comments please, just limericks)