If a phenomenon can be reproduced, it’s science. If not, it ain’t.
The Big Bang Theory is not scientific, regardless of whether or not it’s true. If a concept related to the BBT can be experimented with, it is scientific. The overall BBT theory is not, except maybe to Galactus. You need multiple Big Bangs to test your theory’s validity. This either means you have to survive the bangs and crunches (while also accounting for your presence in them) or else exist outside of the universe entirely, while able to observe it.
Social science is an oxymoron. Burn hydrogen in oxygen 100 times in a row and you’ll get water, 100 times in a row. Then ask someone, “what’s your favorite color” 100 times in a row. But first prepare your last will and testament. It would go something like this:
#3–“I said blue, are you deaf?!”
#5–“It’s red, like the color of the stuff that’s about to come spurting out of your nose!”
And so forth.
Statistics are not science. That they are closely associated is how “social science” gets away with its pretense. In sufficiently large populations, verifiable, reproducible patterns and trends are observable.
The sum total of individual social interactions provides a wealth of data that reveals endless statistical variations…between groups. But drawing asumptions about individuals based on their grouping is much like taking actuary tables and claiming to know when specific individuals will die. It isn’t science, it’s soothsaying.
And emergent evolution is not even theoretically scientific. Even for Galactus. Saying that something happened “by chance” is utterly unscientific. The W.O.R.M. has previously dealt with this.
I’m grateful to work at an actual scientific facility. There’s humility in scientists rarely seen in philosophers, “social scientists”, and militant evolutionists.
Because people who have to put up, are people who learn to shut up.