Why isn't a luck-based hypothesis considered to be science?

Answer 1

"Luck" is actually a core element of science. Although, perhaps written in a different light.

Everything is based on statistics. For any occurrence, there is a statistical probability that it will and will not occur. In many senses, a toss of a coin.

In a sense, this is akin to luck.

People create a confidence interval to describe this aspect. Something doesn't have to happen all the time. In fact an occurrence can be quite rare. One just has to have a 95% confidence that one's experimental variable is related to confirm a hypothesis.

Consider smoking for example.
Not all smokers develop lung cancer. Actually those that develop lung cancer are in the minority.
And, some non-smokers will develop lung cancer.
However, smokers develop lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. And, this is a statistical difference.
One can isolate some genes that will predispose one to develop lung cancer, in effect increasing the risk. And, these genes plus smoking will make it more likely to occur.

But, when it comes down to it... it all hinges on luck. A coin toss... A roll of the dice... on whether or not one gets the cancer. One may take actions to weight the dice against oneself, but it still hinges on a roll of the dice.