Try to apply the rigour of logic of science … to science.
Okay, let’s take a simpler case: apply it to the scientist.
Too Complex? Simpler still: apply it to the thinking of the scientist…
Question: can you apply the rigour of logic of science to … itself (the rigour of logic of science)?
Science is unscientific.
Because science is not an object; nor are scientists objects.
Science is a social language construct, for human communication.
There is NOTHING scientific about science.
The word/name science is only a name, a word.
The word Science derives from the word “Scientia”.
The Latin word “Scientia” refers to knowing, the known.
Science is not about the known, but deals with getting to know the unknown.
This makes science a paradox, a conundrum, a self-contradiction: a Singularity.
Only by understanding that science operates in/as a singularity can we understand the findings of science.
They always have a symbolic meaning only; they are not real but only a realisation.
Science is the composite body of knowledge formed by scientists.
This makes science a Social Construct, operating by Organic Principles.
Living organisms operate by changing their interfacing via Freedom of Choice.
As long as science disregards and denies that, science will be unscientific.
Science is an abstract linguistic construct.
Science is a regulated social organisation.
Science is an art, of scientists, exploring.
Science is a job for scientists, for money.