Sorry, That’s Not Science
“That’s unscientific,” they shout! “That phenomenon is not observable or measureable – therefore we discard it as being any credible consideration of fact.”
You know what? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black! After all, “The concept of sufficient evidence is infinitely elastic. It depends on context.” [David Berlinski]
The “scientific method” is a great thing, no lie. Theories are tested and validated by experimentation and measurable evidence. Bogus notions are weeded out from data not making par.
According to most definitions today, “Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning…Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.” [Quotations from Wikipedia]
Makes sense, doesn’t it? But it is lacking something that it used to have. Today a lot of valid evidence is ignored as unscientific simply because of a definition – the current definition of the “scientific method.” This definition is often cited if it is desired to discredit certain scientific conclusions. Yet it is ignored in order to embrace certain other scientific conclusions!
“Golf has no method beyond the trivial. Neither does science.” [David Berlinski]
Science once entertained the likes of rationalism, inductivism, hypothetico-deductivism, realism, even antirealism. Not that all of these are accepted as the most useful of methods necessarily. But the point is, there are numerous credible methods of evaluating our world. It is not effective to restrict “science” to only what is “empirical and measurable.” After all, conclusions about past events would have to be thrown out. To study past events, other appropriate scientific methods have to be used (and are).
For some reason, today there is a double standard in what we call science. Some untestable, deduced conclusions about past events are embraced while others are thrown out. Quite often it’s not a matter of whether good science was done, but favoritism. This shift is steadily revealing a step backwards, a farce even, and dare I say a plot devised by a now biased scientific majority to limit knowledge to their and only their domain.
“And the meek shall inherit the earth.” Rush 2112.
Science Jargon 