There’s been a lot of discussion of “science,” lately, and it seems that there is a wide variety of information gathering that may or may not deserve the term.
Science, according to a web definition, is
“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+science&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=
A problem with some of the ancient Greek philosophers, from what I recall of elementary school studies, was that they often used the inductive method. While they were brilliant, these fathers of a nascent science missed out on critical experiments. For example, I think it was Aristotle who thought that in birth, the boy kicked his way out from the uterus (though that was hard at the time to test experimentally, I think that a mom would have set him straight:, “I PUSHED him out, thank you very much!”).
Edit: that is not to say we do not have a great deal to learn from the Greek philosophers. I am frequently amazed by many of their insights.
Personal testimony, another source of hypothesis, is highly unreliable as science. Thus, appropriately, arises the criticism of faith in many cases. It’s also a source of much credulousness in quack medicine, as people of faith often readily believe in testimonies of “cures” without much to back the sellers of snake oil up (thus, I think, the vitamins we see on faith TV channels with celebrities touting their experiences).
Skepticism of results is one of the strengths of science; thus, although it’s always receiving modifications by observations and better experiments, the mutation is one of its strengths.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on examples of appropriate science.
Edited to clarify and avoid blanket pronouncements