Are you not doing the same thing back to him ?
If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.
2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that they apply.
I think we found a point we can agree upon!
"Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult.
Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)
The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".
If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth').
Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"
No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.
They didn't say that. They said science was a collection of tools and processes. Obviously tools and processes exist that aren't a part of that collection.
That doesn't mean that red isn't a colour because there are colours that are not red.
Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.
People simplify things like to use hypothesis > experiment loop as Science. But, in practice simple observation is often used for things like Botany.
Ex: Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. You can’t argue from first principles and end up with a modern CPU.
I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it.
Now days we call the useless bits philosophy, 200 years ago back when people took Phrenology as a real thing that was not true.
Thats just it though, science is natural philosophy. Doesn't get changed by modern terminology at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Your personal definition of science and philosophy don't override the overall usage of the terms. Feel free to encourage their use, but know those definitions aren't the overall accepted definitions in use.
Anyway, it's really not my definition for Science, if you want to quote wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][a]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) Notice the last of specific implementation details, that's what I am referring to.
"The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE" well before natural philosophy. The Greeks are given a lot of credit, but they the ideas are much older than them.