Re: What makes a science a science? Why isn't Geography a science?

You have asked a question that has been troubling philosophers for at least 
the last hundred years. I could show you fifty or sixty books that have 
been written arguing just this point. Mostly, unfortunately, they are dry, 
closely argued, and quite difficult to read. One that you might get on with 
is a book by Professor Alan Chalmers from Sydney called "What is This Thing 
Called Science?", but I think you might find even that one quite heavy 
going.

To give you some idea of how varied the answers have been, I will mention 
just two views that influential philosophers have come up with. Sir Karl 
Popper wrote that what distinguishes a science is that its theories really 
do say something -- they might be wrong. He was greatly troubled by the 
arguments of psychoanalysts, who seemed to have a way of explaining away 
absolutely any behaviour with their theories. So he came up with a test -- 
is there any possible result of any observation or experiment that would 
require them to change their theories? For some forms of psychoanalysis and 
for astrology the answer seemed to be 'no'; for physics and chemistry it 
seemed to be 'yes'. Paul Feyerabend took a completely different view. He 
argued that there was nothing special about 'science' and that astrology, 
numerology and even voodoo ought to be considered just as seriously as 
physics and chemistry as possible sources of knowledge.

So there is no authoritative answer to your question. I will give you my 
own view as a sort of practical working model. I lay no claim to being a 
great philosopher. 

1. I am attempting to distinguish science from other areas of human 
endeavour and knowledge seeking. I am not trying to say that 'Science' is 
the only way, nor even the best way, to acquire knowledge.

2. Science takes the external world as its subject matter, and is based on 
trying to understand that world, or some of the systems in it, by direct 
observation or experimentation.
Any attempt to understand the world in terms of the wisdom of ancient 
writings, or religious scriptures, or pure meditation, or prayer,  might or 
might not be a useful way to obtain knowledge and understanding. But it is 
not science.

3. Science is primarily curiosity driven -- a quest for knowledge. When it 
becomes exploitative, it ceases to be science, and becomes technology or 
engineering.
Biotechnology, genetic engineering, space travel, computer technology are 
all much more technology than science, even though they are often called 
science.

4. Science is based on sensible weighing of evidence from observations or 
experiments. When new 'discoveries' are made or new 'theories' are aired in 
science, they must be linked to observations and experiments with a chain 
of valid, though not necessarily watertight argument.

----------------------

Your other question is 'Why isn't Geography a science?'

I think that some bits of Geography are a science. If you look at the four 
points I have made above, you will see why. It is clear that there are also 
large bits of Geography that would not count as science. But Geography is 
not unusual in that. There are large areas of chemistry (my own subject) 
that I would argue are technology rather than science.

The University of Melbourne seems to agree with me to some extent -- they 
have always had Geography in their Science faculty!