>>78247
The problem is that you cannot do research in the social sciences as you can in the natural sciences. In the natural sciences, you look at objective phenomena. Hayek talked about this in a book, The Counter-Revolution of Science. Most Austrians did at some point, in fact, but Hayeks book is the best one I know.
In the natural sciences, you deal with things that always behave the same under the same conditions. Hence why you can isolate variables to narrow the number of possible causes down to just whenever you do an experiment. In the social sciences, on the other hand, you deal with people, who all act purposely. They won't all act the same if you put them under the same conditions. Even one and the same actor will not act precisely the same two times in a row. That makes experimentation as it is done in the natural sciences impossible. Hence, why behaviorism is a dead paradigm.
Theoretically, if we accept determinationism, then given enough resources (to the point of having godlike powers), it might be possible to isolate all possible variables that determine how people act, and then use the same methodology for both natural and social sciences. We're nowhere near that point, however, so we don't have to discuss whether this state of affairs would be impossible or not. Right now, we can only use a subjectivist methodology in the social sciences, as opposed to the objectivist one we use for the natural sciences. This means that bluntly observing how people behave will get you nowhere, you also need an understanding of what their actions mean to them, and what meaning they ascribe to their environment. Something as simple as writing down a definition of money becomes impossible if we forget what it means to people.