I follow Popper on the notion that a scientific claim is one that suggests further inquiries (or is capable of making bold, new, and falsifiable claims). The observation "this was designed" tout court only makes the question "How was the pencil created?" go away. Until we start a conversation about who the designer was, what tools they used to design it, etc., this claim isn't fostering any new thought.
Bundled with that... I think calling an individual statement 'scientific' is as problematic as calling an individual plank of wood 'house-ific'. We need statements and claims to build sciences, and we need planks of wood to build houses. The use matters. Things are only scientific to the extent that they afford us a means or methodology for doing science.
Anyway, I'm pretty attached to this description of scientific paradigms.
Bundled with that... I think calling an individual statement 'scientific' is as problematic as calling an individual plank of wood 'house-ific'. We need statements and claims to build sciences, and we need planks of wood to build houses. The use matters. Things are only scientific to the extent that they afford us a means or methodology for doing science.
Anyway, I'm pretty attached to this description of scientific paradigms.
