It is not a science. It tells you nothing about individual actions. General chemistry is a science because the sample sizes are so enormous (1 MOLE = 6.23*1^23 molecules).
Wrong! There is theory and there are methodologies for estimating theiretical parameters. The methods are tested against the theoretical predictions.
It is not a physical science but it is a science.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2344809?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102670539237
Sample size says nothing about whether a subject is a science or not. Oversampling and overparametrization lead to false conclusions often.
I said that statistical science is not a physical science but physical probability machines prove me wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUBhhM4vbM&list=PLDF301534C65CED18&noredirect=1
There is a statistical flight physics
problem I worked on back in the 80s. It
involved estimating the scattered impact of the pieces breaking up in the atmosphere from the STS main external tank in the S. Atlantic.
The algorithm used deterministic Kepler equations to compute an impact point but these equations were formulated for vacuum and not for the atmospheric buffeting and shear conditions that were present.
Further, there was no certain way to determine how many pieces and what size pieces the tank would break into.
The solution was statistical. The algorithm ran a Monte Carlo iteration of about 10,000 or more cycles, each time varying in a random sense the atmospheric buffeting and wind shear as well as varying the number and size distribution of the pieces, and computing a scatter impact for each cycle.
At the end of the Monte Carlo run, all impact points were used to calculate a 95% confidence ellipse. And we made sure the ellipse was far away from coastal cities and heavy traffic shipping lanes. From feedback data we knew some of the pieces were as big as Greyhound buses.
The statistical science worked like a charm. Satellite images confirmed our statistical ellipse was safe and reliable in predicting the impact area.