While Popper is not into 'definitions', one may see that he is proposing
one:
"A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is
falsifiable."
In a more explicit fashion, the 'analysandum' gets four analysans-clauses:
1. 'Scientific' applies to a theory or a hypothesis T.
2. T's statements must be capable of conflicting with conceivable
observation.
3. Energetic attempts are made to put the theory to test and
4. Negative outcomes of the tests are accepted.
His is a logic-based normative proposal: a definition of 'good' science as
it were.
An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt
to claim a legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is
sometimes referred to as fringe science, or junk science.
Then there's "cargo cult science" for cases in which researchers believe
they are doing science because their activities have the outward appearance
of science but actually lack the kind of utter honesty that allows their
results to be rigorously evaluated.
Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may
fall into these categories.
There also can be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides
of scientific debates.
Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science" (as opposed to
what Popper may be said to be trying to define) research that may be
well-intended but is actually incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or
over-simplified
expositions of scientific ideas.
The term "scientific misconduct" refers to situations such as where
researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have
purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.
And so on.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
