You’ve successfully turned the discussion from being about “can a field which does not produce reproducible results be a scientific field?” to “what are the requirements to judge whether a field is scientific?”
I have a PhD in chemistry, and a good bunch of published scientific articles. Besides that I’ve studied philosophy of science for half a year. I assume that should make me qualified (in your eyes) to reiterate the questions and points made by [email protected]: “Can a field that is largely incapable of producing reproducible results be regarded as scientific?”, “Why do so many fields that are incapable of producing reproducible results insist on being called scientific?”.
You’ve successfully turned the discussion from being about “can a field which does not produce reproducible results be a scientific field?” to “what are the requirements to judge whether a field is scientific?”
I have a PhD in chemistry, and a good bunch of published scientific articles. Besides that I’ve studied philosophy of science for half a year. I assume that should make me qualified (in your eyes) to reiterate the questions and points made by [email protected]: “Can a field that is largely incapable of producing reproducible results be regarded as scientific?”, “Why do so many fields that are incapable of producing reproducible results insist on being called scientific?”.