I am a scientist, albeit the most junior kind of scientist, and I reckon “science” can legitimately refer to a set of answers or a methodology or an institution.
I doubt anyone in this thread would object if I called a textbook compiling scientific discoveries a “science textbook”. I’m not sure even Taleb would blink at that (if it were in a low-stakes context, not in the midst of a heated argument).
The information in a science textbook is (or should be) considered scientific because of the processes used to vet it. Absent of this process its just conjecture.
I often wonder if this position is unpopular because of its implications for economics and climatology.
Well, this is a problem you have if your culture is so egalitarian that common people think they are entitled to their own opinions instead of quoting an authority: hopefully one that uses the scientific method properly.
True for scientists. But for most people science is indeed a set of answers
I am a scientist, albeit the most junior kind of scientist, and I reckon “science” can legitimately refer to a set of answers or a methodology or an institution.
I doubt anyone in this thread would object if I called a textbook compiling scientific discoveries a “science textbook”. I’m not sure even Taleb would blink at that (if it were in a low-stakes context, not in the midst of a heated argument).
The information in a science textbook is (or should be) considered scientific because of the processes used to vet it. Absent of this process its just conjecture.
I often wonder if this position is unpopular because of its implications for economics and climatology.
http://xkcd.com/397/
Well, this is a problem you have if your culture is so egalitarian that common people think they are entitled to their own opinions instead of quoting an authority: hopefully one that uses the scientific method properly.