` ::::::I'm not sure I agree with your categorization of behavioral science as a ``soft science.`` Behavioral studies start with a set of conditions, predict results, and study actual results quantitatively as well as qualitatively. It makes no claims to be able to predict any given individual's behaviors, but it's got a pretty good track record of finding out common responses through controlled experimentation. In any event, my ``beef`` (I don't really have one, more an academic interest, but you say tomato, I say tomahto...) is in how Scientology is presented as a religion and as a science, depending on circumstance. The language of science seems to be used to bring Hubbard's untested, unproven (in the scientific sense) teachings into secular settings. A specific example would be Applied Scholastics. That is  let's not mince words here  an organization of Scientologists devoted to bringing Hubbard's ``study tech`` into public schools, in a manner that, frankly, doesn't go out of its way to reveal the religious nature of that ``tech.`` Personally, I find it fascinating that a religion's adherents feel so strongly that their methods are proven and work that they want to share it secularly... but that doesn't mean their methods really are proven and really do work. I guess in the end, my objection  more of a concern, really  is in the unnecessary blurring of the line between science and religion. If study tech works, it should be a simple matter to prove that scientifically, at which point it's no longer religion, it's proven fact.  `