I'm pondering about this as I look at the conversation between Karol and I.
What is the definition?
I'd say it's, "a body of knowledge ascertained and built through repeated and repeatable experiments that ask demonstrable questions about the world."
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"):58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
* the science of theology
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
* have it down to a science
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
* cooking is both a science and an art
5 capitalized : christian science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. any skill or technique that reflects a precise application of facts or principles.
The issue is pseudoscience:
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1]
The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
 goes to "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–96, after Book 3, The System of the World." I have found such a source of the book online, compiled quite nicely. The compiler would like money for it, so I provide the link should you like to donate.
I found the spot, "The System of the World", which is after Book 3, but it's principally focused on talking about planetary orbits. I was thinking that perhaps within book 3 was meant, since I see "Rules Of Reasoning In Philosophy"... but I thought we were talking science, not philosophy? I want to know what those "specific principles of reasoning" that "a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence" is subject to.
One question here, for me, is: How would you do repeatable consciousness experiments?
Paradox put forward, How do you repeat spontaneity?
How do you predictably do something spontaneous?
I mean, it's hard for me not to think of an Alan Watts video here...
This is where The Backster Effect is considered bull, because it requires spontaneity, and it seems like Backster is the only one who sufficiently considered the possibility of primary perception in a scientifically realistic way, designing experiments that could be done without his involvement or emotional bonding via the handling of plants, thus making for quantum entanglement; if you're considering the hypothesis seriously, then you don't make such careless mistakes. According to Backster, Kmetz was not automating his procedure properly.
No one has reviewed this piece of content yet