Great question Néstor A. Montalván . I would use Lemaitre's Big Bang theory as an example of a field of inquiry that began in philosophy but today is treated as science.

Science is a systematic body of knowledge pertaining to a specific field of study that contains general facts which explains a phenomenon. Science is not only a body of knowledge, but also a way of knowing.

If the knowledge acquired is universal, measurable and verifiable then it's scientific knowledge.

Hi Nestór,

You are asking a big question. From a philosophy of science point of view, I have always found Karl Popper's demarcation criterion - falsifiability, i.e. possibility to empirically refute a statement, claim, or thesis - an essential part of discussing the answers.

You are really stepping into a huge philosophical and methodological controversy. What makes a field of inquiry a science?

Some prefer to define it narrowly and others expansively. I tend to not wade into the epistemological morass of the philosophers. My opinion is that the philosophical method is incapable of providing answers that are logically consistent-see Whitehead’s old comment about philosophers asking the wrong questions.

I approach problem more practically. Science is what scientists do: based on observation of a phenomenon form a causal hypothesis that can be falsified; using experiment or observation attempt to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. Scientists work with models (simplifications of complex processes) to understand causation. Science doesn’t have to be quantitative. Qualitative methods can be used to test hypotheses. See Gerring (2017).

In my own field, international relations, quantitative research is often some of the least persuasive for a whole host of reasons, like equifinality, variable selection, proxy variables not proxying what you think because they are convenient, omitted variables, etc. Mixed methods are some of the most promising.

if the field of knowledge is build on the basis of some experimentation and analysis , then it may be termed as a science ..

Yes, it is possible to determine from an epistemological point of view (study of knowledge) whether a field of knowledge is science. There are two requirements:

First there is the content requirement. Generally speaking there are three fields of science (content): formal (e.g. logic, mathematics, statistics), natural (physics, biology, chemistry), social (e.g. sociology, psychology, economics) and all the three of them with their applied fields. So if a field of knowledge (content) falls under one of these three branches, the first requirement is met.

Then there is a second requirement: the knowledge content (formal, natural, social) must be collected (qualitative, quantitative), processed and stored (literature), applied (by a community) in a systematic way. This is the scientific approach of theory building by the use of hypothesis, experimentation (data driven), verification (testing) and falsification (validation).

For knowledge to be qualified as science from a epistemological point of view the content as well as the process requirement must be met.

If the knowledge/observations are measurable and reproducible ; and it leads to new thought it is science. Science is experimentation and the criteria for experiments are objectivity, systematic inquiry, control and replication.

Yes, Timira, science is necessarily new and evidence-based knowledge, albeit on a probabilistic basis. But where is the boundary between new everyday and scientific knowledge?

Pure sciences are deterministic and applied sciences are probabilistic as mentioned by Alexandr Nemtsov . The new everyday knowledge aids in conceptualization of a new model or may lead to a new theory that may lead to scientific knowledge. Basic research in the realm of management also uses methods of science.

Colleagues, thank you very much for your valuable contributions to the thematic discussion. Timira Shukla Alexandr Nemtsov Muhammad Faraz Mubarak Rudi Darson Magnus Richter , Mahfuz Judeh , Anant Lakshendra , Gabriel R.G. Benito , Greg Olsen