I see three problems with this comment (even though on some level I seem to agree with its intended message):
Appeal to dictionary definition (essentially), paying close attention to details in authoritative wording. In this case, the wording misses the point, because the relevant features of the problem are not yet visible at this level of detail.
Dismissing subjective experience as domain of proper hypotheses. Even congitive scientists have tools now to perform scientific investigation of subjective experience, and rational hypotheses about subjective experience that are not scientific abound.
I see three problems with this comment (even though on some level I seem to agree with its intended message):
Appeal to dictionary definition (essentially), paying close attention to details in authoritative wording. In this case, the wording misses the point, because the relevant features of the problem are not yet visible at this level of detail.
Stress on the word “scientific” instead of more relevant features of proper/improper hypotheses. See Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence.
Dismissing subjective experience as domain of proper hypotheses. Even congitive scientists have tools now to perform scientific investigation of subjective experience, and rational hypotheses about subjective experience that are not scientific abound.