Yeah, I'm all for investigating this line of thinking further, but all sorts of weird coincidences come up in numerology that no serious person would consider "science".
Whether it's good science is beside the point.
> Science doesn't have some super clear, strict, reductive definition like the "scientific method" you may have been taught in school.
This is peak anti-intellectualism, this is the exact kind of school bashing that Isaac Asimov warned us about.
There is no definition of it "in my mind", this is not about opinion vs opinion here, friend.
I ask, because usually, when I hear people say "hurr durr scientific method", the defition that comes out of their mouth excludes almost all of science except 2 or 3 fields. And I'm not interested in having a discussion with a silly disagreement in terminology at the core.
I'm not sure where you're getting all your veiled insults from. I'm not an anti-intellectual, and I'm not bashing school. But yes, kids get taught straight up incorrect things in school all the time. That doesn't mean I think school is bad, in fact I encourage it. It's just a fundamental consequence of the fact that information is never perfect, and neither are the teachers or authors communicating it.
Try to examine your own biases and figure out why you're placing me in some kinda crackpot category just because I think anthropology is a valid field of science.
(But linguistics definitely is.)
We also have things like computer "science", library "science" and military "science".
Just because it's a "science" in common parlance doesn't mean it actually is.
Where do you think definitions reside?
My understanding of alchemy is that its practitioners tried to transmute matter from one kind to another, e.g. lead to gold, because they didn't know enough about how matter worked to know they'd always fail.