...Craig, let's just agree to disagree. It appears that you simply do not want to learn what science is or isn't and you clearly don't know what "philosophy" is. You use the term "science" in a loose, relatively undefined way that really has no meaning and it can therefore not be discussed. (that's a philosophical point) What you keep proposing are tautologies.
There is a long, formal history of science and the philosophy of science that has defined and codified these terms and science is not synonymous with technology nor with engineering nor with natural history. Indeed the use of the word "science" in the modern sense did not occur until the 18th cent and the word "scientist" as not used until (as I recall) until about 1820....
....When I have more energy I'll get back to the point I was trying to make about organic synthesis and the conservation of mass. But it has to do with science.
I'll agree to disagree, you see I feel the same way. The historical comments and falsifications don't really add any concrete definition to the word. Possible you could see that I gave examples of the application of science and never equivocated it with technology. Just as Replacement pointed out that structural engineering wasn't 'science per say', my following line clearly show how the scientific findings were applied.
I still look forward to your science of the organic synthesis comments, particularly if they related to concrete science and not philosophy of biochemistry.
