Science is a process, a method.
The essential purpose of this process is validation. Not validation as in 100% certified, but validation as in how likely it is to be a reflection of reality, how close it is to objectivity, to what extent it is verified as true.

Science is a Process whose product is meant to be an understanding of the real, but in a verified form, validated. If it has zero validation, it did not result from the successful application of Science.

If we attempt to apply the Process of Science, and end up saying ‘We know no more now that we did before the application of science.’, then science has failed.
We cannot say science has an understanding of reality, if the information is not validated.

There are some essential tools that science depends on.

We might partially list: observation (including the non-visual observations), testing, reasoning, use of logic, measurement, and others I’m sure.
By a list of essential tools, I mean that we cannot validate without certain tools or procedures. We might use one only, or several, but validation requires application of certain tools or procedures, it seem to me that is not debatable. I would also say that the use of any one of these tools or procedures, in itself, gives some degree of validation.

The more applications the better the validation, but any one will add to our understanding of reality and provide some measure of validation.

By essential, I also mean that the tool or procedure is indispensible to the process of science. If it were removed from our list, the essential function of validation is so harmed or lessened, that Science no longer has the form we have been using. We do not have to use measurements every time we use the process of Science, but could Science continue without measurements? I do not think so. And the same with testing, reasoning, logic, etc.

No, these are not all needed at every step of the validation process, but without any one of them, the process of Science as we know it would cease to be. It might exist, but in a very different form.

Essential tools are indispensible in the validation process which is the essential purpose of Science.

There are other tools the process of Science uses, that are not essential. They are virtually useless as validation tools or procedures. They provide no degree of validity. As part of a process, whose intention is validation, they are not productive. They do not validate independently, nor even if used together.

The purpose they do serve is to bring the truth forward, so that science can validate it.

They find truth, discover reality, recognize objectivity, offer subjective knowledge, so that science can validate it.

In themselves, these tools are not scientific, would never be part of a planned process of science. Would never be depended on to complete a Process of Science. These techniques are definitely non-essential but often present, in the Process of Science.

They could easily be referred to as the creative side of the Process of Science.

In many cases they are the genesis of perceived truth, that the Process of Science is not able to validate. My personal belief is that it is not that science is incapable of the validation, just that it is too immature.

The two at the top of my list, are Serendipity, and Intuition.

Serendipity and the Intuitive Process have added a great deal to the efforts of the Process of Science, but are certainly dispensable.
Eventually Essential Science methods would arrive at the same place, it would just take a little longer.
Acceptance of Serendipity and the Intuitive Process has been a great aid to the Process of Science.

By that I mean in themselves, they really provide no verification, are not scientific, just tag-alongs. Helpful, but the process of science would progress just fine without them.

Any corrections needed?

If we attempt to apply the Process of Science, and end up saying ‘We know no more now that we did before the application of science.’, then science has failed.
We cannot say science has an understanding of reality, if the information is not validated.

Sometimes on the edge of my perception I see that science is a language of metaphores. Some entities are unable to communicate otherwise, it seems, than thru metaphorical arts and sciences. I could validate this but it may take some time to organize the thesis, and to catch the buggers at it.


There are some essential tools that science depends on.

We might partially list: observation (including the non-visual observations), testing, reasoning, use of logic, measurement, and others I’m sure.
By a list of essential tools, I mean that we cannot validate without certain tools or procedures. We might use one only, or several, but validation requires application of certain tools or procedures, it seem to me that is not debatable. I would also say that the use of any one of these tools or procedures, in itself, gives some degree of validation.

The more applications the better the validation, but any one will add to our understanding of reality and provide some measure of validation.

Any corrections needed?

As science finds new ideas through research and the scientific method they never seem to understand what the impact upon society or the environment will be. They just push ahead with their findings and let society deal with whatever they unleash into the world without any regards as to the disastrous affects those things can produce 50 years down the road. :(

As science finds new ideas through research and the scientific method they never seem to understand what the impact upon society or the environment will be. They just push ahead with their findings and let society deal with whatever they unleash into the world without any regards as to the disastrous affects those things can produce 50 years down the road. :(


In my first delvings into the metaphysical I was assured that Alistair Crowley had the definitive last word: "Do what you wish is the whole of the law"

Obviously that is an invitation to unlicensed greed (which may have been the point as some may conclude) and that may be a factor in the concern of what science can unleash.

If we attempt to apply the Process of Science, and end up saying ‘We know no more now that we did before the application of science.’, then science has failed.Presumably you include tests that come up negative as "knowing more"? e.g. if we test sample X for A, and the test comes up negative, we at least know that X is not A, even if we can not say what X is?

We cannot say science has an understanding of reality, if the information is not validated.Science has NO understanding, per se. Science is a method, as you have stated, or a tool.
Methods require no understanding.
They require merely to be used.
It is the users that claim the understanding (or not).

Does a screwdriver have an understanding?

As science finds new ideas through research and the scientific method they never seem to understand what the impact upon society or the environment will be. They just push ahead with their findings and let society deal with whatever they unleash into the world without any regards as to the disastrous affects those things can produce 50 years down the road. :(No offence, but this has nothing to do with the OP.

Science is a tool.
Scientist - the man - is the one with any ethical and moral responsibility you may wish to insist upon - but not Science.

Science can only be used - it does not use itself.

And this thread is, from what I gather, about the tool / method of SCIENCE, not about the people that utilise the tool.

We are putting science under the microscope and attempting to validate the information gathered.