This definition is concerning because without strict criteria for what is and isn’t science, we welcome topics like phrenology.
Topics like this are, as a whole, not true. While I think psychology is no where near as problematic, the author’s argument that a loose definition of science, like whether the scientific method is employed, can be dangerous.
> This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
Ultimately, what we define as scientific will impact what we perceive to be truthful. Setting a higher bar for a topic to be labeled scientific will strengthen our grasp on secular truth.
Defining science without reference to the scientific method sounds far more concerning. 'A discipline that uses the scientific method to investigate hypotheses' doesn't seem like a loose definition to me, and it definitely doesn't allow phrenology.
Topics like this are, as a whole, not true. While I think psychology is no where near as problematic, the author’s argument that a loose definition of science, like whether the scientific method is employed, can be dangerous.
> This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
Ultimately, what we define as scientific will impact what we perceive to be truthful. Setting a higher bar for a topic to be labeled scientific will strengthen our grasp on secular truth.