Well yes. That's how it works, though your chosen example isn't really science, as far as I know, but science abuse.

Yes, that is how it works, and it is what you (and others) have been defending, regardless of how off the rails it can be for however short or long it takes to get back on track again.

Well, yes. That's how it works, and it means that there is, or can be, a propagation of 'not true' into the loop without feedback until some other variation comes along...which itself will be continuously refined and/or modified until the Great Truths that Explains All Truths is derived.

'Yes, that's how it works' means to me that you can take any 'after the fact' analysis and say, well, obviously, that wasn't science, or it was science abuse. It also means that I need to have faith in your science and someone to tell me which is the real stuff and importantly, to keep a straight face.

To the side detail point, the science of eugenics was very well accepted at the time and accepted as derived from very scientifically researched theories. Its ramifications still haven't been wrung from the system.

The problem with "spiritualism" is that no-one even seems to be able to define what it is unless one accepts that it is meaningful to start with.

Yes; I'm pretty certain that you could make the same argument of science as well if you wanted to. (I haven't thought about this, but will pretend to be a science guy.)

You would start by pointing out that words generally are created in an experimental fashion that favors science, that science is tailor made for labeling things...sometimes, that it all it is good at. Things don't need to be understood, but they sure can be named.

Then a nice hustle with a pejorative post-fix, call it scienceism and...

OK; that's enough of that. I'll let you nail science for all that it is not by yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that we can play with double-helix models in the bio lab and the physics lab (even if they might have different words and models for explaining the same things in different ways. I am not a church goer, I don't get into spiritualism, and I don't like people ripping people off of money or time or anything else.

I do believe that there is an area of study in an area of non-bio, non-physical essences. If it is important to have a set of words for that, I'll work on it and perhaps present it in my first diary. But having a name or set of words for it isn't critical for those who are looking to find it and get benefit from it. Perhaps that is why they get nailed by charlatans so often.

That science and religion have both littered the present field, and that neither explain or handle more than they do (with a lot of work left over for the future), that they have both been used for harm (perhaps equally), that they both seem to give their adherents a sense of superiority (or inferiority that needs to be rigorously defended), doesn't mean that the future needs to be the same way.

If it were only as bad as 1984.