Good Article in regards to feauturing innovations, but it lacks proper use of the word scientific . The inventions above are speculative in nature. They have to do with abstract, subjective concepts and/or predictions.
For something to be considered scientific it needs to go under rigorous testing cycles, be falsifiable and comfirm theories over and over again with no exception.
None of the above falls under this spectrum.
Hi @kyriacos
I appreciate your kind words and I see your point too, but I quoted all the references. 1st, 2nd and 3rd, I don't really think those are inaccurate because references site also call them as "science". (I might agree if you insist on point 2 but all two others are fine). That was the reason why I didn't call it "scientific experiment" and rather called them "Scientific researches". Happiness formula is found by scientists after continuous research, also jerk-o-meter, and finally a technology which is a result of continuous scientific research on prediction like what you need to do to research. We might not be able to call those "scientific experiments" but I am sure we call it "scientific researches".
Thanks for your reply and your point.
if there was a formula for happiness everybody would be happy @steemist
let us not kid ourselves now