| The basic heuristic I use for determining what 'counts' as science relies on 3 questions 1) Are there methods or is there a description of how to observe something? 2) Are old methods being applied to a new phenomenon. 3) Are new methods being applied to an old phenomenon. It isn't possible to do science if you don't have a viable tool (method) for measuring a phenomenon of interest or if you can't describe the phenomenon you want to study in a way that others can observe it. Cases like Mochizuki with the ABC conjecture are harder, but at least the ABC conjecture is a know quantity. It is reassuring that classifying papers by category of research works fairly well. Both phenomena and methodology are described using specialized vocabulary, and mismatches tend to jump out, like trying to use a hadron collider to study the blood pressure of a frog. I almost like to believe that a crackpot that could masquerade as a scientist might actually discover something because they would be forced to actually engage with the concepts and tools of science. |