> You're applying far too strict of a definition to science.
This isn’t a fun theoretical exercise. In the public sphere, “science” tends to get invoked with dispositive weight. And it should in many cases. But for that to work, “science” must meet the level of rigor people associate with “science.” To be called “science” it should be like physics in terms of providing truth value, not psychology.
Aristotle didn’t do “science.” He was a philosopher. His ideas were precursors to science, but weren’t science.
This isn’t a fun theoretical exercise. In the public sphere, “science” tends to get invoked with dispositive weight. And it should in many cases. But for that to work, “science” must meet the level of rigor people associate with “science.” To be called “science” it should be like physics in terms of providing truth value, not psychology.
Aristotle didn’t do “science.” He was a philosopher. His ideas were precursors to science, but weren’t science.