Define 'science'. Don't look it up online....from your own brain, define it. [I Love Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream]

@Harmonium1923 This is a good go at a modern definition. Let's just exchange the word 'facts' for 'data' or 'information'. Let's go with that definition . A follow-up.... Is "science" then contradictory to un-natural phenomenon and unobservable things, or, contrarily, does "science" just having nothing to say about those things because they are outside the realm of its definition (outside its purview)?

@uncleshawn Exchanging "data" for "facts" is a nice improvement. I'm not sure "un-natural" is a well-defined concept, so I'll leave that one alone. With respect to unobservable phenomena, I'm still pondering that. I don't think science has much to say on something that is purely a belief system or a moral judgment (war is always bad vs. war is sometimes necessary). That debate is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. But sometimes just demonstrating that something is not observable in rigorous testing (say, alchemy or telekinesis) is a legitimate function of science.

@Harmonium1923 That's a beautiful reply. So, "science" has a realm. It is not all-inclusive of reality, in the modern definition. Being all-inclusive of reality would be the old definition of science that was destroyed by Empiricism: the study of the world (old definition). ....Let me throw this at you. Logic and math are invisible, yet "science" relies on them. So "science" assumes and believes that the unseen is as integral to the world as the seen. So even the modern definition assumes that all kinds of invisible things must be possible -- perhaps even likely, but at least possible.

@uncleshawn Logic and mathematics are just tools, and are self-referential. Philosophers bother themselves with questions of metaphysical underpinnings, while scientists and mathematicians simply use the tools.

@QuixoticSoul Yes, they are tools. They are taken as real and truthful. And they are invisible. And therefore the invisible is more fundamental than the physical. And this is why definitions matter.

@uncleshawn Real and truthful aren't even concepts that mathematicians and scientists bother to apply to math. That's the sort of stuff philosophers worry about. For that matter, math and logic aren't required for science anyhow - they are merely useful.