Why natural science is more scientific than political science?

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

the answer is camped

hmm, sadly there is no dialogue. there is no place in the story where he is talking to anyone. it's more of just describing what he eats and where he sleeps. you have to become anne frank, give details of where you are, what other folks look like, how the environment is. have a little bit of dialogue tell of what people are specifically saying. anne frank talked about her entire household including the people, the objects, the lighting, the food they ate, and even the smell in the air. there has to be more to your diary entries, the whole story in its current state is only about peter van daan, the food, the sounds, and where he sleeps. also he seems to be writing only once a year yet more than that happened from day to day. for a friend, i can you write it out, if you want.