> This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theor

> This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theories backed up by empirical observations. If we only have observations, it's not science, because observations are neither particularly useful nor falsifiable. > Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science ... Many commentators on this issue argue that an empirical, falsifiable theory that is able to make predictions about things not yet observed is a requirement for science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain." Also, very important, observations (descriptions) can only be a preliminary to shaping an explanation, a testable theory (an explanation). Observations without a theoretical dimension are indistinguishable from stamp collecting and are a step toward science, but are not science themselves.