Right, so long as we can agree that science is not limited to the scientific method. Science should be well defined, but not limited to arbitrary confines.
Science is well defined.
Oh, so when science is defined in the way Popper defines it, it is "arbitrary confines", but when it is defined in a way to legitimize cargo cult science, it is "well defined".
Arbitrary confines of science is when you limit science to the scientific method. Well-defined science is frankly an insult to science
> Science should be well defined, but not limited to arbitrary confines.
> Well-defined science is frankly an insult to science.
Spoken like a true pseudoscientist.
Yes, it should be an insult, right? How dare they can expect a scientist to use scientific method for all their results? I mean, it sounds totally crazy, insulting! And more importantly, how are we gonna publish papers or get grants then?
Strawmen for days!
Just answer me this: Do you believe that the science is purely limited to the scientific method?
Just riddle me that and I'll be content. Just keep in mind that you'll be outing yourself as scientifically illiterate.
Science without the scientific method takes us back to alchemy, or astrology, or numerology. Those precursors eventually refined their methods and developed into sciences, but were not sciences. Most of the "soft" sciences appear to be closer to those protosciences, particularly when so much of the crackpot, discredited theories still circulate in the zeitgeist the way they do, as in, say psychology.
So no science as a field should remain well defined in scope and meaning, in the same way crafting shouldn't be blurred with engineering.