MadSci Network: Science History |
One frequently encounters statements or conclusions that claimed to be "scientific". What are the specific defining criteria one should expect to be met for the term "scientific" to be legitimately applied? That is, what criteria when present uniquely and unambiguously differentiates "science" from all other terms -- as speculation, conjecture, etc. While there are many contextual variants for the word "science", the one most generally understood is "empirical" science ... observable and verifiable by the five senses, etc. ... is the one intended here. Any other (lesser?) contextual meaning to be responsibly identified by the user. Words in science must be precisely defined and clearly understood by all parties. Indeed, if one cannot unambiguously define a term, he should not (be allowed to) use it. I have been surprised at how many widely ambiguous and broadly misleading definitions for the term "science" are in use today ... and only the scientific community can correct this.
Re: What criteria unambiguously distinguishes 'science' from 'non-science'?
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Science History.