A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you

A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you something when it would have made more sense to ask "why do you say that" or "why would that be true". And I do know people who would use this definition: every single person I know who is a scientist. I think it's a rather pithy distillation of the process of gaining scientific consensus. The source would be: "learn what the process of science is about, how it works and about the philosophy of science and this quote becomes a rather obvious truism" A single study is to science what a single TDD test case is to software engineering. Despite what crappy news outlets tell you. All that said, lutusp is being pretty negative about this study for no obvious reason. Someone needs to do the exploratory work at the beginning and this is interesting work, whether you call it science or the start of science. The rest seems like complaining about the press being the press.