(August 22, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Faith No More Wrote:(August 22, 2016 at 5:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I generally agree with what you said here (about the role and nature of scientific inquiry).
Let me ask you; is what qualifies as "Science" determined by the conclusion or the method used?
It's determined by the whole process. From the methodology used to the falsifiable conclusion to the repeatability of experiment to the peer-review. Every step has to be followed properly for it to be science.
I would agree, that the conclusion needs to be falsifiable. I think that repeatability is debatable, does the study in question only become science once it is repeated? What about historical sciences.... what exactly is it you are saying needs to be repeatable?
Peer review is an interesting one. I only ever see it come up as definitional in this context. What about those in the private sector or government that are not able to publish their work? Does this disqualify their work as science. Most of Einstein's work wasn't published, let a lone those who worked before peer review. Are they not scientist? And there have been a number of people, who have won Nobel Prizes in science, who's work was originally rejected by peer review publication. Why do you think, that peer review is critical to defining science?
Also, could you please expand on what you mean, by "every step has to be followed properly for it to be science".
