@crazyivan In social science, this does not always result from that. Most so-called “hard” scientists seem to think that the social sciences are not science. They believe this always results from that. The problem is, that there are infinitesimally small possibilities that this will not be the outcome of that. This is my understanding of the significance of quantum uncertainty.
Other things happen that make it impossible for this to always result from that. Measurement error is a significant problem. Part of that comes from measurement tools that simply can’t get accurate enough. It’s also because of inaccuracies in our definitions of what we are measuring.
Now these events where this does not result in that in the hard sciences are exceedingly rare, but they are there. Probability plays an important role in the hard sciences.
The soft sciences have the same measurement and definition problems, only they are much larger and much more significant than in the hard sciences. I think that hard scientists tend to overlook this. They put themselves in little boxes of conventionality, and they do find themselves wearing white gloves, and ignoring some things that might change their their theories. Granted, these things are very very small and insignificant, but they aren’t zero.
Studies of human behavior are notoriously difficult. So many things can go wrong. We know that. When things go wrong in hard science, they think their measurement machines are not good enough. I doubt if many conclude that they are not measuring what they wanted to measure.