Wow, NPR radio — that beacon of truth, justice, and unbiased reports.
Of course it would help if you knew how to read.
As the article says (if you can piece it together with all the technical difficulties) that no one knew what to call all of these different people doing different things and that some people were using natural philosopher whereas others were using cultivators of science.
The article goes on to say he was actually writing a book that became very well known, "The Philosophy of the Inductive Science," at this time, where he was trying to set up - how do you come up with a hypothesis? How do you prove it? Should it be universal? And you know, this all seems, you know, so basic to us today. But (technical difficulties) back in 1830s, 1840s,
when real science, as we understand it, was just being laid out.
Now I know you are anxious to claim posthumously that everyone you approve of was indeed a scientist because it fits in well with your theory of the world. Unfortunately, it’s not going to work.
Great pyramids were built in Egypt without science and based on nothing more primitive mathematics — or are you one of those who claim that it must have been aliens?
My ancestors were gold plating things with a thickness of no more than a few microns more than 3,000 years ago without doing science.
Coca and tobacco was cultivated and shipped round the globe at the time of the Egyptians landing in their tombs for modern-day archaeologists to find and all without science.
Nowadays, of course, we have science which has made wonderful contributions to our lives like chemotherapy — that magical anti-cancer procedure that is all of 2.1 percent effective (see
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies - PubMed ). Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed.
"...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..." - Imre Lakatos