> I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is ta

> I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is taking place. But science isn't defined by its process, it's defined by its philosophical axioms, its foundational rules. The first and most important rule is that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable in practical tests -- if there's no empirical testability, there's no basis for falsification, therefore there is no science. The second rule is that scientific ideas cannot ever be proven true, only false. The third rule is that an idea without supporting evidence is assumed to be false, not true (this is known as the "null hypothesis"). The remaining rules are comparatively unimportant -- these are the big three, without which any discussion of science is pointless. Science's process can change, and from field to field, it certainly does. But the rules stay the same. > Science is like the stock market. It's lots of people spit-balling about what's happening in the market ... That is not science. To call that science is like confusing a spacecraft with a conversation in a bar about a spacecraft. > It is possible to criticize the current way we have set up the Scientific endeavor without criticizing the abstract notion that human beings will generally discover new things over the long term. Again, that is not science. Science's goal is not discoveries, its goal is to reliably refute ideas that are false, primarily by comparing them to reality. This is why science journalism articles that trumpet breakthroughs, with rare exception do a disservice to both science and journalism.