Answer:
Social sciences (e.g., economics and psychology) are just as scientific as natural sciences (e.g., physics and biology). The difference is not in quality, but in what is studied and the limitations imposed by studying that. For example,
Subatomic particles are very well-behaved and easy to manage compared to economies and human minds. This makes it much easier to control studies and experiments of natural phenomena than social phenomena.
Ethically, we cannot experimentally manipulate humans or human activities as much as we can experimentally manipulate particles, atoms, molecules. This imposes challenges on social scientists’ methods that are not imposed on natural scientists’ methods.
So social scientists must do science differently than physicists. But both sets of scientists obtain and analyze novel data to test hypotheses about their domain. So they’re both doing science. It’s just that natural scientists’ encounter fewer ethical and logistical challenges than social scientists.
Hope it helps
Please mark me as the brainliest
Thank you
"on the first day of"
That's the only answer that comes to mind.. I'm not entirely sure if there's more to the question
It’s b I just took the test and got it right
A hero is described as courageous and brave. “Towards external evil, man within his breastassumes a warlike attitude, and affirms his ability to cope single-handed with the infinite army ofenemies.” says that a man with heart takes a warlike or serious attitude makes do with what he<span>has to take on his “never ending” enemies. I believe that the ability to control one’s self emotions</span>
