QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:18pm)
It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.
In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".
Of course, scientists, like the rest of humanity, are fallible, prejudiced, and at times intellectually dishonest. For that reason, they can refuse to accept as scientific theories and fields that are, by their own definition, scientific. But that is not an argument against the "scientific" definition of science.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:22pm)
Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.
It is a peculiar egalitarianism that demands that scientists and non-scientists be placed on a "level playing field" on scientific questions.
This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: