> Ravi said:
>
> by your definition, science is those things among
>
>>the
>>various activities of human beings that produce reliable results on a
>>fairly consistent basis! so should some aspect of astrology start
>>bearing fruit in this sense it will quickly be labelled science and
>>subsumed into some school. which is all fine with me, except it remove
>>the reason to privilege science before the fact.
>>
>
> Sure. Is that supposedto be an objection? The prestige of science depends on
> its producing results. If astrology produced results, it would be entitled
> to that prestige too. There's nothing a priori about it.
>
i am afraid we are going around (at least i am) in circles. that science produces results seems to be only because scientists immediately adopt anything that works, as a science. so in effect, it only holds true that science is what scientists do.
--ravi