Sato

I think that psychology is definitely a science, but a very soft one indeed. A good analog ad extremum would be taking in the fact that the observation and study of chess pieces — moves, interactions, and all — independent of the actual players is technically a science as well. But it's obvious that one might consider this a very high level or 'soft' science because of how so far down the chain of causality it is. Yes, now that I'm thinking about it that's definitely how I'd define the spectrum of soft-hard sciences; the closer to the fundamental end of some chain of causality some subject is, the 'harder' or lower-level/deeper the study (science) of it is and the farther up it is, the higher-level or 'softer' it is. The chess game is a result of the psychological processes in some intelligent being (waving the motor movements which cause the physical pieces to move, which are in essence caused by the psychological processes themselves), which are a result of some neurological/psychophysiological processes in your brain which are are caused by biological processes of a similar order throughout your body, those which are a result of chemical processes aggregating to form your cells and other biological systems, which are too a result of the (most fundamental/hardest/lowest-level) physical particle/space/time interactions which of course could be a result of some even more fundamental physical interaction, maybe string theory or whatever else it might be. Maybe mathematics, e.g. mathematical monism? Who knows.

This seems nice but you do have competition: Via Google, I found http://www.petridish.org/, and I'm familiar with https://www.microryza.com/ as my friend got her DIY community biology hackerspace funded via it.