>>12260884Science is not about empirically verifiable questions. This is a nonsensical and simplistic view on science perpetuated by pop sci fags. There are plenty of things that scientists do that have nothing to do with verifiability. For instance, the construction of models or the development of systems of axioms to describe a particular class of phenomenon. For example, if you are studying replicator dynamics and creating models to get a better understanding of ecology or epidemiology or something, that is neither verifiable, nor is it falsifiable. You are simply creating descriptions of phenomenon with varying degrees of precision.
Also there are many cases in which 'verifiability' is by definition impossible, but the subject is still 'scientific'. For example, the entire discipline of human evolutionary biology/biological anthropology is fairly rigorous and scientifically well-established, and yet it is widely accepted that most of the theoretical claims of evolutionary anthropology are, strictly speaking, unverifiable since we have no way of testing our hypothesis in order to either verify or falsify our claims. All the evidence we have available, is by definition, old as fuck and not subject to additional testing. We can never conclusively verify a lot of the claims, all we can do is accumulate more evidence to construct more complete evolutionary theories.
