> Changing the descriptor would be a classic case of bike-shedding.
Strongly disagree. Things that are "scientific" get way more acceptance by the public then things that are "hey, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
For instance, in what sense at all is "political science" an actual science in the sense of chemistry or physics? It seems to me that it's an entirely different thing, and so I'm not surprised at all when a political science "result" fails to replicate or is outright bullshit.
Science has come to mean, in many cases, "area you can get a PhD in" vs. what we tend to act like it means, which is "area where the scientific method applies." I guess I'd like to see the word science only used for the latter meaning if we're going to continue to give "scientific" disciplines extra respect.
If instead we want to continue to use "science" to denote "anything you can get a PhD in", then we should seriously degrade or eliminate altogether our instinct to trust "scientific" results.
