[bgie]

You are applying the 'no true scotsman' fallacy wrong.

Depending on the definition of X, you CAN say that something is not X

Only if you define 'science' as 'the thing that people labeled scientists do', can you arrive at your conclusion.

I would define scientists as 'people practicing the scientific method'.

[coldtea]

>Depending on the definition of X, you CAN say that something is not X

That is a good strategy only if you already have a sample of the thing to derive a definition from.

To create a good definition you should examine reality, and see the thing as it actually behaves, first. Only then, once you have a reality-based definition, you can judge other specimens and use the definition to say whether they are X or not.

Else, you just impose some idealistic / non-empirical standards upon reality based on an arbitrary (since it's not based on observation) definition.

The land and the people existed (as a land and as a people) and gave its name to Scotland (and content to the definition), not the inverse. It wasn't someone making up the word first and others then checking whether the people in Scotland fit it.

>Only if you define 'science' as 'the thing that people labeled scientists do', can you arrive at your conclusion. I would define scientists as 'people practicing the scientific method'.

In real life, people call themselves and are called by others scientists if they have studied for and are employed as such, whether or not they "practice the scientific method" and even more so, whether or not they practice it properly.

So defining scientists as 'people practicing the scientific method' (and e.g. excepting people with Ph.Ds who practice it badly or care to get grants to the detriment of science) is rather the canonical 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

In that sense, no scientist could ever falsify data or make up a theory and cook its research to support it, or prove something that a company paid them a grant to prove, because "by definition" such a person wouldn't be a scientist.

[meroes]

The concept of science, which is the empirical study of reality, does not change. There are many concepts that can share the same word - is a Scotsman someone born in Scotland, one who moved there, one who shares Scotland's culture and ideals? There should be different labels for each of these concepts but there aren't.

The importance, relevance, trust, and reality of science may change, but the underlying concept does not. Nevermind all the other forces trying to co-opt 'science' for their own purposes.

How many papers and articles describe a purely empirical inquiry into reality and accurately describe all shortcomings and sources of error? 10%? 1? It matters that our trust in "science" may continue to degrade, but none of those change the underlying concept/ideal.

[astazangasta]

The 'scientific method', of course, is that which is done by scientists.