zlacker

> If you follow the scientific method, it's science.

OP's claim was that quantitative finance was *hard science*. Requirements regarding predictability are way more stringent than merely observing stuff and seeing how it responds to an input.

>>arinle+(OP)
> OP's claim was that quantitative finance was hard science*

These are colloquial terms [1]. We might as well argue about whether Pop Tarts are ravioli or tacos sandwiches.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

>>JumpCr+52
What is(n't) a taco is a semi-solved problem[0].

[0]: https://cuberule.com/

>>JumpCr+52
> These are colloquial terms [1].

Colloquial terms whose concrete meaning does not correspond to OP's claim.

There is no ambiguity in this: if your models are not testable and fail to predict behavior then it's not hard science.