Until recently, I was familiar with the concept of isnad chains but was unaware that the term for the study of this is called the Science of Hadith.  The goal of the Science of Hadith is to determine the sahih (authentic) hadiths from the rest.  The muhaddith (Islamic hadith scholars) try to determine whether transmitters have ever lied, and are therefore unreliable.

But is this "science"?  Western physics is not reduced to determining what Isaac Newton said, according to his contemporaries, and whether those contemporaries ever told a lie in their lives.   Astronomy is not simply looking at the written words of Galileo.  The word "science" has a meaning, and a methodology, which are simply not fulfilled by the Science of Hadith.

In (Western) science, the scientist forms a hypothesis, and then constructs experiments that can test the validity of the hypothesis.  If the evidence disproves the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned, no matter how widely believed it is, no matter how politically powerful its adherents.  If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it must be accepted, no matter how absurd, until an alternate hypothesis is proposed and tested.  The history of 20th Century physics is replete with examples of long-held, self-evident "truths" which were disproved, one after another.

The evidence gathered during scientific experiments must be repeatable.  Different scientists must obtain identical results for identical experiments.

In Islam, the word of Allah is indisputable.  If the Qur'an makes claims that are demonstrably false, the Qur'an must be believed over what is observed.  Or more accurately, humans should not attempt to validate the contents of the Qur'an in the first place.  No amount of evidence will "prove" the inaccuracy of the Qur'an.

In the Science of Hadith, there are no hypotheses, no experiments, and no objective evidence.  There is only the subjective opinion of muhaddith regarding which transmitters are "reliable" and which are not.  Different Islamic sects have differing opinions on the importance of ahadith, and on the relative reliability of various ahadith.  There is no mechanism by which the sects could resolve their differences objectively.  Each has their opinion, backed up by reams of Islamic scholarship to defend their position, and never the twain shall meet, except perhaps on the battlefield.

For example, Twelver Shi'a and Ismailis believe that the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Mohammad, were infallible.  The members of Mohammad's immediate family are believed to have had absolutely complete understanding of the Qur'an, and are absolutely trustworthy.  Meanwhile, some Sunnis reject all ahadith, pointing out that the six major sets of ahadith were collected by Persians, not Arabs.  They point to Qur'an 6:38, which says "Nothing have We omitted from the Book [the Qur'an]".

In the Science of Hadith, there is no skeptical inquiry on the part of the muhaddith.  There is only the rote clerical categorization of who said what to whom, and an assignation of trustworthiness to each hadith transmitter.  No new ideas can be generated;  innovation (bid'ah) is specifically forbidden.  The only information that anyone can ever need was given by Mohammad 1400 years ago, and the only thing left to do is memorize what he said and did, and emulate his behavior as closely as possible.

The consequences of the Islamic view of "science" are a moribund, credulous mental condition; a paucity of scientific and artistic innovations by Muslims over the centuries; and a widespread belief in conspiracy theories.  There is no need for the gathering of evidence to support this or that conspiracy;  if the Qur'an says that Christians and Jews cannot be trusted, then ipso facto they cannot be trusted.  If a trusted imam says that Jews drink the blood of murdered Muslim children on Passover, then it must be so according to argumentum ad verecundiam.