Somewhat surprisingly, Feynman's point in [44446] seems to some people to be new or something not easy to accept. If one only has a vague understanding of science, based on what is typically given in the "mass media," that is not so surprising. If one is engaged in pseudo-science (or something like social and behavioral sciences) and think that what one does is science, that is not surprising, either. Finally, some may think that the use of statistics is what makes their research "scientific," point to the use of statistics in quantum physics and object to my pursuit of definite and categorical predictions and their deduction from hypotheses and my attempt to obtain experimental results in accordance with them.

It seems that what must be understood in this connection is as follows: (i) the use of statistics/probability in quantum physics is due to the uncertainty principle, according to which we cannot predict, with the same high degree of precision, the exact position and the exact momentum of a single particle simultaneously, (ii) but they do make definite predictions, with amazing precision, about the behavior of a large number of atoms and their predictions have been supported experimentally over the years, and (iii) finally, in relation to language faculty science, we do make a definite and categorical predictions about the behavior of a single/individual informant, not about the average behavior of a group of informants. It may be necessary to make the third point very clearly and loudly; unless we did that, those engaged in what I consider to be a pseudo-science may well think that they can still defend what they do and call it a science.

Of course, what is to be considered a science is just a matter of definition. So, they can call what they do whatever they want. But they should understand that it is not an exact science in the sense I use the term (which is characterized by (i) deducing definite predictions and (ii) putting them to rigorous empirical test).

Finally, well, really finally in this posting, some might well say, as has in fact been suggested by Chomsky himself, for example, what people do in generative grammar, minimalism, or bio-linguistics is more analogous of chemistry before quantum physics -- they do not yet "deduce" definite and rigorously testable predictions; they are (just) trying to do some descriptive (and speculative) work hoping that someday the results of their work will contribute to the establishment of an exact science (in my sense). In relation to such possible reactions to my work, I would say that my proposal is an attempt to do an exact science NOW, without having to wait for a future point in time.