The tough one is that I cannot find anyone able to reasonably discuss with me. Do you know any place on the Internet, where I could find people who would actually read my text? No one reads these days. People only write…
As for your “quasi-sciences […] based solidly on scientific understanding and rock solid mathematics”. It’s an oxymoron. Either something is “a science based solidly on scientific understanding and rock solid mathematics” or it is not. Mathematics is very strict. Either something fulfills all the enumerated requirements, and then certain mathematical tool can be used; or it does not fulfill them all, and then you simply cannot use mathematics and still call it science. It’s like being pregnant. Either you are, or not.
I explained it to the quants:
“Mathematics is very strict. You cannot take just any numerical sequence (like the post codes in your area, or the prime numbers less than 1000), make calculations and say: “It’s the variance”. It is not.”
And:
“You may calculate the variance of the post codes in your region. If you see any practical application of such move. But do not call it science.”
You wrote also: “because inclusion of a human component is always a wild card.” Perhaps it is time to draw some conclusion from this pretty obvious statement? We bump into it time and time again but nobody wants to ask “what does it tell us about our reality. Why is it, as it is.”. Don’t you think such question should be finally asked and… maybe even answered?