I don't like being accused of rape, even in a metaphorical manner.

In any case, since you are not even intending to create a model that gives predictions, my whole argument is pretty pointless. The whole discussion becomes one of "which theory is prettier," which is, of course, of its own importance, but which seems to me rather pointless.

If social sciences cannot make predictions, then why are they called sciences, and why do people invest in them so?

I meant "prettier" in a metaphorical sense. Since you can't check those theories, a selection of one over the other is _pure_ aesthetics. Of course, Science has aesthetical considerations when choosing theories, but at least the theories that are not adequate are screened out by experimentation.

How was it found to be wrong? How do you check whether a social theory is at odds with reality?

Well, there you have it - you do use a sort of "experimentation" in social sciences. Why, then, are social theories there not tested under such criteria? For instance, Theory A is falsifiable by a professional survey stating that the number of murders per day has decreased by less than 10%. (It predicts, of course, that the number of murders should decrease by 10% or more, for some reason known only to its originator, and some illuminaries.)

(Ask Konqueror, KDE's web browser.)