Re:An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
by imron on Friday September 27, 2019 @09:34PM
(#21097789)
> What about ... which do not allow us to "repeat and predict," as you say?
"if you can't repeat and predict, stop calling it science" seems like a nice bright line.
For what it's worth, there is science meeting the "repeat and predict" definition that can be done in each of the fields you list.
Re:An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
by myrryr on Saturday September 28, 2019 @12:48AM
(#21098519)
Astronomy / cosmology absolutely makes testable predictions.
Re:An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
by omginternets on Saturday September 28, 2019 @04:36AM
(#21099189)
Not that I necessarily agree, but the suggestion was to find a different word for these fields.
(Also, most of the fields you listed do allow for replication.)
Some of these cases can be rescued by considering "retrodiction"[1][2] as valid substitute for prediction in the right circumstances, but not all.
I personally think the analysis of the Mott problem[3] points the way to the solution to some of these kinds of issues. That is, a prediction can take the form of a likelihood function which assigns high probabilities to certain combinations of events and low probabilities to others. Theories with low perplexity[4] can be considered correct even if they can't make predictions, and the study of such theories can be scientific. But as far as I know I am the only one who thinks so.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction
[2]: https://afdave.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/sir-karl-popper-and-...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mott_problem
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perplexity