Science
Science is knowledge acquired through a method called the scientific method — which is the most accurate method to discover facts as of now. Science is the explanation of why things work, or in other words, the causes of the effects.
While science is indeed a collection of facts, it would be foolish to consider only science as facts. This is because science is merely the discovery of facts and not their invention1. For instance, the knowledge that matter is made up of atoms became a scientific fact only after its discovery by John Dalton in 19th century. It would be foolish to consider that matter was not made of atoms before this discovery, or that the proposition prior to the invention that atoms constitute matter was false.
We keep discovering more and more facts, thus inferring that facts exist irrespective of whether it is scientifically discovered or not. Also, the manner in which we conduct scientific experients keep improving, inferring that there are many phenomena and facts that can only be discovered with advanced faculties, thus further inferring that there are many facts yet to be dicovered. So to only call scientific knowledge as facts is either foolishness or arrogance. To call something as false, its falsity must be proven.
Such mistakes are seen in the field of medicine where the proponents of evidence based medical knowledge often accuse other forms of medical knowledge as quakery. On the arguments between the practitioners of evidence based medicine and other alternative medical disciplines, I wish to say that while it is true that alternate medicine is not scientific (because scientific methods as it is today have not been able to establish the principles of alternative disciplines), something not established scientifically does not imply that it is falsity, or that it must be prohibited. Only when science proves it to be false, will it become false. In the case of alternate disciplines such as Ayurveda2, science hasn't proved their principles wrong, but only failed to establish them, which only implies that there is room for improvement in the research used.
Secondly, what does it matter to a patient whether a treatment or cure is scientific or not? All that he or she cares at the point of illness is to be cured by any means, even if it is a placebo. This is often countered with the argument that an unscientific treatment can harm the patient. But I have never heard of any patient who have been harmed bt the administration of alternative medicine. In fact, evidence based medicine is statistically notorious for dangerous side effects. Therefore, a call for the prohibition of such alternate medicines does not make sense at all. No governments or health ministries must cave into such demands.
I do not intend to speak for those patients who claim to be cured by alternate medicines. But I find the counter arguments made by the opponents ridiculous. They argue that the cure is because the evidence based medicine medicine started working just when the patient started administering alternate medicines. This argument is merely a guess work since it is made without any scientific study of the particular patient (and science is what they use to attack alternate medicine). I admit the possibility that medicines can work late, but it will be a statiscal anomaly to say that this is the reason for the effectiveness of alternate medicine among all patients. And for such patients to whom alternate medicine is the go-to discipline, this argument is not applicable at all.
Then there is an argument that the cure was due to certain changes in the diet or lifestyle or habits. This could be a suicidal argument to make becuase most alternate disciples speak of a holistic approach which puts strict terms to all aspect of the patient such as the diet, sleep, exercises, rest, habits, etc. Therefore, claims that changes in such aspects cured the patient is almost validating the effectiveness of alternate treatment.
Then there is an argument that the practioners of alternative discipline have mis-judged the causes of effects in the functnioning of human body. This is true, but so is the case in every discipline including the evidence based medicine discipline. We have always mis-figured why things happen until a more technologically advanced study is conducted proving why things actually happen. This is only a ground for further improvement in the discipline; not the prohibition of it.
Having said all these, the practioners of alternate medicine must stop skewing knowledge that is already uncovered by scientific methods. I presume that it is competition that pressures practioners of alternate medicines to talk about the workings of human body — especially the anatomy and prove that they know how things work. This is dangerous and even counter productive to the aceptance of alternate disciplines.
Scientific and Unscientific
Lately, the words 'scientific', 'unscientific', 'scientifically' and 'unscientifically' are being loosely used everywhere. It is not the frequency of usage, but how and where it is used that raises my concern because the actually scientific stuffs are drowned to the level of mediocrity. You see, the adjective 'scientific' and adverb 'scientifically' originate from the word 'science'. Therefore it must be used with nouns and verbs that reflects science.
Science is knowledge acquired through a specific way; knowledge that can be reproduced, substantiated or verified. Science is what many people refer to as facts. Therefore, only knowledge and activities with the goal of gathering knowledge qualify to be prefixed with such words.
People tend to call methods that can be explained by science and methods that work for them as scientific. The fact is, every method, its functioning and results can be explained by science. Science is knowledge of what works and what does not work. As for methods that work for us, it is us who give methods the label of what works and what does not; or what are right or wrong. They are a human qualifications. What happens in the universe does not contain any element of good, bad, right or wrong. These qualifications appear only when examined through a set of conditions. For instance, if a method gives us the desired results, it earns the name of a working method, or the right method; else, the method is said to not work, and labelled to be wrong.
So, in my opinion, we must not refer to anything as scientific, unscientific, scientifically or unscientifically simply based on whether it works for us or not; but only based on whether science can explain it or not. If you take the example of farming, every farming method works according to science because the outcome is based on facts. If you farm the 'right way', the outcome is what science predicts it to be as per the biological and ecological functions resulting from that method. If you farm the 'wrong way', its outcome too is what science says it will be as per the biological and ecological functions resulting from that method.
It is not entirely right to say that all farming methods are scientific either. While it is true that what happens in each farming system is what science tells it will happen, it is not correct to call farming scientific or unscientific because farming is not knowledge per se nor an activity conducted to acquire knowledge? Although you can garner knowledge from the farming, the purpose of farming is not to acquire knowledge. The context here is where people segregated farming methods as scientific and unscientific, because some of the elements were results of our technological revolution: like pesticides. But these 'scientific' methods were in fact destructive to both humans and ecology, and since my idea was to crush this perception, I realise that saying, 'farming is neither scientific or unscientific' to be more beneficial than saying, 'all farming methods are scientific'. It is more potent to remove altogether the idea of being scientific from the equation than to leave behind some parts of it.
The necessity to use such words carefully and accurately is imperative today because there are consequences of health, ecology and monetary loss otherwise. People have a tendency to believe that a thing labelled as scientific must be good and beneficial. This perception coupled with their voting power pushes so called scientific policies — which may not be beneficial at all like chemical farming — into action. In other spheres like shopping, the same perception now coupled with buying power leads to buying products and services that may not be truly a sensible purchase. As always, people make the difference; this time only negatively.
Take another example of waste disposal systems. What is so scientific and unscientific about a waste disposal systems? All methods of waste disposal and their consequences can be explained by science. Waste disposal is not knowledge per se nor an activity to acquire knowledge, but to dispose wastes. So I must say that there is nothing scientific or unscientific about waste disposals. Some methods are bad for our health and ecology, some does not pose any threat, while others may be actually good. So you may perhaps phrase a waste disposal system as a healthy or unhealthy disposal system; as an ecologically safe or unsafe system. Or you can sum them up into two phrases: the right method and the wrong method to dispose wastes.
Right and wrong methods depends on the factors you consider while judging the method. If you remove the factor of health impact from a waste disposal system, may methods magically qualify to be right methods. But let it be clear that effects of actions occur irrespective of whether people realise the effects or not because they are governed by other laws of nature. So it is imperative to widen the factors we consider to judge methods.
Science and Shastras
In Indian discourses, the word 'shastras' is wrongly used as a transalation to the word 'science', resulting in many misunderstandings. Shastras simply means a compedium of rules. Science, on the other hand, is a collection of facts known through a particular method. Consider the word 'shastriya sangeet': if you translate that as 'scientific music', it would be stupid because no music is scientific or unscientific in nature. Shastriya sangeet follows certrain strict rules or patterns in it's composition and therefore known as 'shastriya' — an adjective of 'shastra' meaning 'a compedium of rules'.
While 'shastras' can be an apt translation for 'science' in certain cases, 'vigyaan' or 'vijnaan' conveys best the true meaning 'science' in other cases. The judicial use of these words will result in better discourses and accurate arguments.