The social sciences is a broad description encompassing fields of study that analyze and compare specific facets of society

and the human interactions within each of those set parameters. While the natural and physical scientific fields new discoveries are previously unknown facts, the discoveries of the social sciences are likely to be previously non-existent realities. The dynamic nature of the the subject itself and the method by which social scientists study that subject inherently perpetuates a natural and continuous fluidity. Changes in culture transform the conversation used to analyze that same culture and its transformation, reinforcing that change and possibly laying the groundwork for more. Currently, that fluidity has progressed the social sciences to a previously unreached - in fact, previously unreachable - point where technology has become entrenched in and transformed modern day social interaction and the current standard of academics. Bridging the gap between distant or distinct communities and facilitating easier, more frequent, and more clear communication, technological advances have created the expectation for unlimited information access, as well as the demand for instant action and reaction. This expectation of certainty primes public and internal frustration surrounding the social sciences as little patience exists for the inherent uncertainty that academics and professionals face in fields dealing in cultural norms, public policy, and societal divides. The social sciences and its academics concern themselves with every type of human interaction; however, deviant behavior and its effect on its perpetrators and victims often receives disproportionate amounts of attention. And, as much of this attention manifests itself in discussion through technological means, facets of the social sciences that deal with behavior that violate legal, moral, or cultural standards are plagued with the demand for certainty where there is often none to be found. Even in labeling what in fact is considered deviant and by what standard, controversy exists, especially depending on who is consulted on the subject and under

what circumstances. The dichotomy between the demanded answers and the available answers of the social sciences is readily observable in the academic and professional application of criminology. As academics attempt to understand the complex origins, motives, and outcomes of criminal behavior and as policy-makers and legal professionals attempt to deal with the criminals themselves, public outcry for a solution to the crime epidemic remains. Meanwhile, disputes among different communities, human and civil rights activists, legal professionals, law enforcement, average citizens, and criminals themselves, on what should and shouldnt be considered criminal muddy the discussion of what the actual epidemic is and if a solution even exists. As politicians attempt to win points and critics attempt to make their points, statistics and predictions are communicated and calculated all across the technological sphere as institutions and individuals eagerly quantify crime, its severity, and its predictability - and any other characteristic that anyone desires to know. And while the almost desperate eagerness to know galvanizes a ceaseless conversation on the solution to the crime problem, none of that changes the reality; the complexity, constant fluidity, and complete lack of concrete answers will always exist in criminology, just as in other social sciences. Perhaps there is no possibility of and no merit in public recognition that there might be no solution for the current issues modern day society faces in policing, punishing, containing, paying for, and preventing criminal activity. If so, it will continue to be the responsibility, and perhaps the burden, of professionals who deal in the real-world application of criminology, as well as other social sciences, to balance between satisfying public demand for answers and the need to respond appropriately to the complexities of each situation.