>Scientists avoid attaching a number to something until there's an explanation, a theory, that makes the number both compelling and testable (i.e. falsifiable). //
Hubble seemingly ignored the outliers and drew a straight line through his data to create his eponymous "constant". Making a mark to work from isn't really unscientific it's just loose hypothesising - http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html.
Surely the fact that this meta-analysis has falsified the former claim [hypothesis] shows that it was scientific [at least under a Popperian formulation].
> Hubble seemingly ignored the outliers and drew a straight line through his data to create his eponymous "constant".
That's a perfectly reasonable use of statistics in reducing observations. The same method was used extensively in the recent hunt for the Higgs Boson, until the uncertainties in the process fell below 5 sigma, at which point a discovery was announced.
> Making a mark to work from isn't really unscientific it's just loose hypothesising ...
If it's not either derived from empirical observation or a reasonable extrapolation from established theory, it's ipso facto unscientific.
> Surely the fact that this meta-analysis has falsified the former claim [hypothesis] shows that it was scientific ...
No, it only shows that one unscientific claim (based on no theory and no evidence) can appear to unseat another. And it's not a "falsification", because the original claim is unfalsifiable on the ground that it's not based on a testable theory.
Group A says, "It takes 10,000 hours ..." without any basis. Group B says, "Utter nonsense." This happens in astrology all the time. Does that mean astrology is science? The difference between astrology and science is that scientists won't make a prediction without an empirical basis and a theory about why it's so.
Based on your formulation it seems all new "scientific" [null] hypotheses are "ipso facto unscientific"?
For example c being constant is an axiomatic part of relativity. Ergo to you it seems, as this is not empirical nor an extrapolation but a new hypothesis that when postulated contradicts established science, this suggestion - and presumably the ensuing formulation - was, um, unscientific?
Now I'm happy to go with that, call it a philosophical treatise and recognise the axiomatic nature of relativity but at this point I think your definition of science is too tight; theoretical physics to me is a part of science. Indeed I'd say wild hypothesising can be (and is called) science depending really on what you do with those hypotheses.
Hubble seemingly ignored the outliers and drew a straight line through his data to create his eponymous "constant". Making a mark to work from isn't really unscientific it's just loose hypothesising - http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html.
Surely the fact that this meta-analysis has falsified the former claim [hypothesis] shows that it was scientific [at least under a Popperian formulation].