Andrea wrote: [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method "*The scientific method* (or simply *scientific method*) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena , acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." As an attendee of various 'lecture forums'; Existentialist Society, Atheist Society, Sea-of-Faith, Unitarian Philosophy Group...etc. I notice much veneration for the word 'science; but little attempt at a rigorous operational definition. A critical look at common usage definitions, found in popular dictionaries,would suggest the writers of those definitions had little idea and / or made no attempt to consult scientists of a more philosophical bent. What I intend by 'a definition of a word' is: ' a concise (as short as possible); precise (as unambiguous as possible); exhaustive (including all intended usages and excluding all others); reductive (using no words more complex than that being defined); description of that category, which is the referent of the word.' Rather than dissect the mediocre effort from Wikipedia above; I will simply state what I intend by the word 'science'. *science:*[tentatively] : "An epistemological program, whose aim is verifiable knowledge; interpreted as knowledge consisting of 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis's'. Where by 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis' is intended: a theory consisting of one or more 'objectively falsifiable-statements'. Where by an 'objectively falsifiable-statement' is intended: a statement which asserts explicitly or implicitly , one or more 'objectively observable facts' where by 'observable fact' is intended: (a) A 'logical relationship' between defined categories, or (b) The 'enumeration of a defined category' , or (c) The 'measurement of a defined quality, of a member of a defined category, in defined units ' , or (d) The 'mathematical relationships between such defined quantities', or (e) other unanimously agreed upon, unambiguous and operationally defined descriptions of phenomena. /Commenting on the above definition/ 1/ Normally the number of explicitly or implicitly 'objectively observable facts 'asserted,' will be much larger, than will ever be observed, but in the degenerate case, where all the asserted facts have been observed; the hypothesis reverts to the status of a list of observed facts 2/ All 'falsifiable statements' are not be necessarily objective; and of those that are, not all are scientifically relevant; 3/ The logical consequence of the above definition would be: -scientific language itself, will be qualitatively different from other non-scientific specialist jargons, because of the constraints of falsifiability on the definitions of it's words. -scientific knowledge will contain no value judgements ie. statements about what should or should not be; since such statements are not falsifiable. - scientific knowledge in any subject area, will consist of an: accumulating body of 'observed facts' and a number of hypotheses of variable transience, competing with each other, for consistency with the accumulating body of facts; A logical implication of this, is that each succeeding theory, will contain the replaced theory as a special case. -scientific knowledge may or may not be quantitative; but it is necessarily falsifiable. eg "All bats are placental mammals" is a valid hypothesis 4/ The consequences of 3/ constitute a theory falsifiable against the observed history of science; that is the definition is itself 'objectively falsifiable' 5/ A further falsifiable contention would be , that this usage would be preferred by the demographic of ' theoretical physicists' 6/ Finally, whilst Carl Popper should be given full credit for invention of the term 'falsifiability'; it's use here differs significantly from what he envisaged; thus it must stand or fall on it's own merits. regards Rohan McLeod