By the way, the definitions of "science" that I have seen include the following:
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
which I accept, and
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
which I also accept, but not the two conflated into one definition, which I do not accept.
For example, economic science, political science and even philosophy could be argued to fall under the second definition, but cannot be said to fall under the first.
You appear to want to claim the second definition for the first and vice versa, which is a little like claiming that showing class is the same as teaching class is the same as a pitch class. They are three different uses of the same word, and any argument that would try to claim that the physical and natural sciences explain everything needs to clarify under which definition of science we will have the discussion.
Theologians could claim that "everything that can be explained" is the definition of religion (likely leaving out the colorful qualifier... I don't know).
The problem is that you must use human language to explain your concepts. And never, but never anywhere have I heard before "everything that can be explained" as a definition for science. It's ridiculous.
I've seen things explained to me through dance that science just can't touch. Those things can't be explained scientifically. Can't be proven scientifically. I would really feel for people who only understand the world scientifically, if such people actually existed. It's really the same as those whose worldview would limit them to the spiritual. Very limited.
My point was not that the definition was self-referential. My point was that the assertion itself is unprovable. Which it is. It simply cannot be proven scientifically or logically. The closest you can get is tautology, which is meaningless in this situation. It's a matter of faith.
By the way: "That which can be explained is science."
Does that mean: "That which cannot be explained is not science?" That is, science is limited to that which can be explained?
J.S. Bach's "Art of the Fugue" is propaganda?
By the way, the definitions of "science" that I have seen include the following:
which I accept, and
which I also accept, but not the two conflated into one definition, which I do not accept.
For example, economic science, political science and even philosophy could be argued to fall under the second definition, but cannot be said to fall under the first.
You appear to want to claim the second definition for the first and vice versa, which is a little like claiming that showing class is the same as teaching class is the same as a pitch class. They are three different uses of the same word, and any argument that would try to claim that the physical and natural sciences explain everything needs to clarify under which definition of science we will have the discussion.
Theologians could claim that "everything that can be explained" is the definition of religion (likely leaving out the colorful qualifier... I don't know).
The problem is that you must use human language to explain your concepts. And never, but never anywhere have I heard before "everything that can be explained" as a definition for science. It's ridiculous.
I've seen things explained to me through dance that science just can't touch. Those things can't be explained scientifically. Can't be proven scientifically. I would really feel for people who only understand the world scientifically, if such people actually existed. It's really the same as those whose worldview would limit them to the spiritual. Very limited.
My point was not that the definition was self-referential. My point was that the assertion itself is unprovable. Which it is. It simply cannot be proven scientifically or logically. The closest you can get is tautology, which is meaningless in this situation. It's a matter of faith.
By the way: "That which can be explained is science."
Does that mean: "That which cannot be explained is not science?" That is, science is limited to that which can be explained?
What of the rest? What might we call that?
Language?
Art?
Poetry?
Music?
Dance?
Spirituality?
Religion?
To which you might say: "All those are things that have yet to be explained, but that science will one day figure out, somehow."
To which I of course, desiring strict adherence to scientific method in its ability to explain everything would say: "Prove it."
To which you might say: "I can't prove it now, but some day science will be able to prove it."
At which point you have entered the realm of speculation. Faith. Call it what you will. Not science, though.