The problem with social science

Science is an intriguing thing. Today in class as we were discussing the inversion I found it ironic how difficult it is to solve problems for people. Hard science is easy in the sense that it consists of facts and predictable outcomes. For example, hard science can determine what causes an inversion and why it tends to occur in Logan, but it can't tell us how to solve the problem. It is at this point where we enter the confusing realm of social science.
How do we create a strong enough incentive to keep people from going about their normal daily habits?
This is where things get interesting. Currently, Logan's incentive in clearing up the inversion is to preach to the community. If you look outside or walk across campus you can tell how ineffective this incentive is. I agree with Randy in the fact that the only true way to make a difference is to force individuals to internalize the costs. We touched upon this issue by suggesting mandatory car tune-ups and tickets for driving cars that released too many pollutants. These ideas seem to reflect the ideas of Piguo who "argued that pollution generates a social cost that should be dealt with by the central government. He proposed a system of taxes, bounties, and regulations for resolving the problem" (Hill and Meiners 120). Unfortunately, individuals always find ways to get around the system making this Piguaoan approach seem inefficient.
So once again we are left with the same problem of creating an incentive close enough to the public's self-interest to create results. Social science attempts to analyze the driving forces behind these individual motives. However, when you involve air (something so broad and easy to free ride on) individuals tend to act differently and abuse the commons.