Some argue “repeatability” is what defines science. To point, some argue “repeatability” is the ONLY definition of science.

As a geologist, I take issue with this. Humans cannot “repeat” the formation of the Earth. The “experiment” is run and it took a long time to run the “experiment.” Much longer than the lifespan of even a thousand geologists passing along discovered knowledge from generation to generation.

And yet principles very much like this exclusively narrow definition of science allow geologists to find stuff to make other stuff, like thermometers, glass, plastics, computers, vehicles, etc. absolutely essential to conducting “repeatability.” But geology is disqualified as science due to lack of “repeatability” … despite the obvious success of geology as a “science-like” study.

“Repeatability” many use to disqualify theoretical physics, astronomy, geology, and other distasteful studies running contrary to makeshift ideologies. This is intellectually lazy, using such a slight definition for what is considered “science,” a thing that is partial on a multiple choice high school test where the answer is “D – All of the above.” And if paying attention in high school science class isn’t a check list where ALL components are necessary for it to be science, merely separate ideas that help describe rudimentary science for the uninitiated.

Citing that a lack of “repeatability” as a “Gotcha! It ain’t science!” moment reveals the inherently misleading nature of categorization, where folks incorrectly believe ALL members of a list must be present for validity.

Not so. And, again, if paying attention in any high school science class, anyone can know this. My suspicion is next-day-quiz memorization leads to this faulty understanding of what is science.

Condensed, “repeatability” isn’t necessary to be science. It’s only one component to help the layperson understand the ideas of science.