Now that I am back from cleaning a pool and collecting wood for winter, I would say that determining if a datum from a non-repeatable event is "scientific" or n

Now that I am back from cleaning a pool and collecting wood for winter, I would say that determining if a datum from a non-repeatable event is "scientific" or not, requires a clear definition of what "science" is. I don't have a problem with data from non-repeatable events being used. But it would depend on how it was collected and how it is used. Too often, we see non-repeatable data being used to defend a specific point of view, when that data is only data and could be used to defend any number of points of view. If one cannot develop repeatable experiments to validate your model and theory, then non-repeatable data cannot be used as a proxy to defend your model and theory. It can be used as additional support but that's about as far as it goes. Of course, different people in different fields can and will have different views about such data. The thing to remember is that data is data and not the theory itself. It may support a theory but it cannot ever prove a theory. In every field of study, much data has been collected but there is always anomalous data found. This can arise from the simplest of things like the measuring equipment was set up wrong to the theory or model being developed being wrong.