[lutusp]

> So... Uhhh... Why does gravity work? I know we can describe it, but is it considered science yet?

Bad example. General relativity describes gravity in great depth, and made a number of testable predictions, all of which have been proven in experiments many years after the original predictions. So yes, modern physics is not only a science, but it's the science to which other sciences are unfavorably compared.

Also, an explanation, a scientific theory, as useful as it is, doesn't say "why" something is so -- that's for philosophers.

[nanidin]

> Actually, it's called "science". Science isn't about descriptions, it's about explanations. If we knew why ketamine worked, we would have finally crossed the threshold of science.

But you said that if we knew why it worked, it would have become science. You also said that it's about explanations, not about descriptions.

General relativity may describe gravity, but it doesn't explain it. According to your previous post, this excludes gravity from science. I was just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

Consider this a final response - I see you will keep any argument going for the sake of arguing throughout this post. It's clear you have some sort of agenda or preconceived notion to defend, and I'll leave you to that.

[lutusp]

> But you said that if we knew why it worked, it would have become science.

No, I said if we explained it, that would be science. For God's sake, read the words. Explaining something like gravity doesn't try to justify why it is that way, it only shows that we understand it in depth.

> General relativity may describe gravity, but it doesn't explain it.

FALSE! GENERAL RELATIVITY IS THE PRESENT EXPLANATION FOR GRAVITY.

http://www.highexistence.com/einsteins-theory-of-relativity/

Title: "Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: Explained"

Circle the word you don't understand, and raise your hand.

> Consider this a final response ...

Unfortunately, you are among the science-illiterate.

[aninhumer]

>Explaining something like gravity doesn't try to justify why it is that way, it only shows that we understand it in depth.

So clearly there's some disagreement here about what "explain" means, so I'll avoid that semantic argument and skip to the point:

Understanding something "in depth" is not necessary for science. As long as a shallow understanding makes accurate predictions, it is scientific. Trying to make more detailed rules would just be violating Occam's Razor.

To get back to the original point: If we make the hypothesis "Ketamine cures depression" and find no evidence to the contrary, then it is a theory which is sufficient to describe the world, and speculation about the mechanism is a pointless exercise, just as it would be pointless to look for a more complicated theory of gravity to describe things adequately explained by GR.

However, if we were to find (as is more likely) that in some cases Ketamine doesn't cure depression, only then is there a reason to delve deeper to work out why.