>>12757301Theory+reproducible data = science
Obviously, there is a lot more to it, but if something can be tested and reliably reproduced experimentally then it is a scientific 'fact'. Ideally, in an experiment you will have control over at least one of the variables. However, by this definition, astronomy would not be a scientific discipline when it clearly is.
You can have subjects/disciplines based upon scientific data and ideas, but they themselves fall outside of 'verifiable' science. A good example would be clinical psychology, which is founded upon experimental neuroscience etc., but in the real world of treating patents, controlled, randomised studies are simply too difficult and the data are often to open to interpretation.
Then there are bullshit subject like epidemiology.
