Anyway, a response to your last post is contained in that piece (though it wasn’t written as a direct response to what you wrote).

Best,
Dan

Anyhow, if Wattle pen’s a book - The “Science” of Getting Rich and he helps even one person with his concepts - then THANK YOU to Wattle. But to purport to be the one definitive solution to getting “rich’ would purport to have the one definitive answer to what “rich” is. And this is where I think the question (and science) begins - just what does “rich” mean?

Just to clarify. I was responding to Wattles’ claim that “there is a science to getting rich, and that it is an exact science, like algebra or arithmetic.” I’m happy to concede that there are reliable practical guidelines to being more successful, and that a map like Michelle’s can point people in the right direction. I like @mariettamam’s suggestion that we call these guidelines a “zeitgeist” to being more successful.

I do think there are criteria for what counts as ‘good science’ though. One of the first things I get my university intro students to think about is what distinguishes science from pseudo-sience. Though professional philosophers disagree about the exact demarcation, there is a general concesus that some things should be included and others excluded. And there are some very practical issues at stake: for example, should creationism be taught alonside evolution in the classroom? Or reading horoscopes alongside physics and astonomy? Etc.

Science is no exception… often influenced by the desires of the person deciding what experiment to conduct or fund.

So I find it amusing when someone tries to tell us what is or isn’t science.

Your science, and Wattles is good science to me