Observe. Hypothesize with falsifiable statements. Form experiments that could disprove the falsifiable statements. Observe. Publicly make falsifiable statements to peers capable and incentivized to disprove them.
How can this fail to lead us to truth that is as close to objective as possible? What greater method exists?
It is merely a formula - a method to determine, what is to be determined, why and to what end ALL is Science - the method alone is nothing, method cannot be without data and a hypothesis cannot be without someone to make it and the knowledge required to make a hypothesis. Without logic and reason the method, data, hypothesis and results would be nothing. Without society to allow for and direct progress there would be nothing to hypothesize.
Science is the sum of all of that. The method is a tool - not even the most effective necessarily. The method with make a light bulb - if allowed 200+ tries. Other tools allow for more direct results.
Tesla who transformed Edison's power delivery system into something infinitely more useable and that was only the beginning of his demonstrating mastery of a whole new thing - much of his inventions couldn't come of the scientific method. The method could be used to verify his brilliance but wasn't the source of it.
Tbh, it's literally just predefined, recorded, trial and error - that's it. Just guess, try and repeat - according to the rules so it can be replicated by anyone, super simple really.
It's like a brute force password hack - not the sharpest tool in the shed, but an effective one.
You can't tell someone "here's this totally objective way you can pick apart your conscious experience into a bunch of statistics, and when you do change X I predict you'll see the statistics vary like Y". You can kinda just point their brain in a direction and hope that they experience it for themselves.
Another example, I think, is domains that are under optimisation pressure or control of some kind (like an ecosystem, or much more simply a thermometer). There was a post on HN a few days ago about causality, and how the standard statistical methodologies for determining causality kinda break down when you start measuring systems like this. Correlation is not causation, but in these systems causation no longer necessitates correlation either! Perhaps a different kind of epistemology would be useful here too.
Anyway, not sure this is making sense. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
To date, but I doubt this is a law of nature. What prevents the next big discovery from being the final piece that grounds the system making everything else fall into place?
I completely agree that the scientific process is our best/only tool for meaningfully advancing our understanding of the world.