How should I evaluate whether a question actually belongs in a science context?

This is a meta-question about epistemology—how to distinguish science from non-science—rather than a question *within* science itself. That said, the archive does touch on it indirectly.

The most relevant angle comes from work on how to evaluate reasoning in physics itself. When researchers built benchmarks to test whether AI could do physics, they had to solve exactly your problem: what counts as a legitimate scientific question?

The answer emerges from practice. A question belongs in science if:

1. It has a stake in reality. It asks about how the world actually works, not just definitions or preferences. "Does the EmDrive produce thrust?" is scientific; "Should we prefer classical mechanics?" is not [AG-2025.09-1139].

2. **It admits *principled* evaluation. You can construct an answer that either succeeds or fails in specific, checkable ways. This is harder than it sounds—in abstract fields like quantum field theory, "correctness" itself is layered and tacit [AG-2026.04-565]. But there's still a fact of the matter about whether your reasoning reconstructs the right conceptual steps.

3. It connects to a research program.** Scientists evaluate questions partly by their difficulty and "surprise"—whether they'd advance understanding if solved [AG-2025.07-1634]. A question about how nature works, asked by someone actively studying that domain, usually qualifies.

The archive doesn't directly address how *you* should evaluate this for yourself, so I can't ground a fuller answer in these preprints.