[PatrickHenry]

But if it can't be reproduced, it's not science. If there's no doubleblind, it's not science.

Astronomy therefore is not science, by your personal definition. Nor is geology. Nor climatology. I believe your definition is limited only to the so-called "experimental sciences," which are not the only sciences.

[Mamzelle]

But you *can* reproduce a study in astronomy, geo, climatology...and you can speak confidently about the results of those studies. But the conclusions that are drawn bear little relationship to what the studies can demonstrate. There are only murky clues and plausible theories, to be shot down by the next murky clue or slightly more plausible theory. All you're left with, really, is the faith these scientists have in themselves--and knowing the egos and corruptibility of scientists, I'll pick a better faith. These erstwhile scientists write as if working with far better evidence than they actually have--as if from the kind of experimental data that a pharmacologist works from.