| > How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? You can't. That's an axiom. Welcome to Philosophy of Science. Science, at bottom, has some axioms. 1) Cause and effect The same causes always create the same effects is an axiom. We assume that the God or the Devil don't change all the rules every other Thursday. If there is a being who arbitrarily shifts the rules, science loses a lot of its predictive power. Science will adjust to that, but it makes science much less useful. 2) Continuity The rules "today" are the same as the rules "yesterday" are the same as the rules "tomorrow". The rules "here" are the same as the rules "there". This is a little spicier as we do try to test that the rules haven't changed. We try to test whether or not the fundamental constants have shifted with time, for example. We try to see if things are behaving the same in our galaxy are the same as in otehr galaxies. In fact, practically everything which defines "science" is about the ability to predict and quantify. A) Side: "math" is NOT "science". Math, while certainly falsifiable, is neither quantitative nor predictive. This, in fact, has provoked quite a bit of discussion: See: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness... |
Maybe it's the science of science? Maybe it's the philosophy of philosophy? Maybe it's the science of philosophy? Maybe it's the philosophy of science?
Maybe it's all the same under naturalism?
Studying science (itself a natural process) using our computational understanding of what a "process" is and does sure fits the Oxford definition of "science".