` :::: Those changes are actually pretty good! Looking at this outline I think the article can be written like this, if it is filled with would be editor-warnings of the type:  . To keep it from bloating up with that stuff. Also, there should be some fairly heavy warnings right up front. I would expand the {{distinguish}} header to say something like: This article is about the general term as it refers to many fields of reproducable knowledge, including mathematics and applied sciences. For the specific topics of experimental study by scientists, see Natural science.  As for specifics, the first thing I would do is move the ``Formal sciences`` part ABOVE the scientific method, since the full method as we know it, isn't really used in the formal sciences. And we need to talk about many of these, including classificational sciences and methadologies, statistics, etc, before we get to the scientific method, in which all these feature as ``taken for granted`` out-of-the-box tools, not fields of study.  The other thing that distinguishes the ``experimental sciences`` from those that merely describe (formal sciences, but also political science and government theory, which begins to look like the study of history) is that experimental sciences include the variable of TIME. Thus, they all succeed or fail in whether they are not only explanatory, but also predictive. And the predictiveness must include the future as well! ``Prediction is very hard, especially about the future`` sounds like something Yogi Berra would have said (and he is credited with it sometimes), but it's actually first said by Neils Bohr. Who knew that retrodiction is prized in science if it flows naturally from a theory (the theory doesn't look too ad hoc), but prediction is even more highly-prized. And one must discuss this. When a theory explains something that has already happened (like a lot of political science) it's retrodiction. But nobody expects historials to predict the future and nobody really hires poli-sci profs to be political consultants and campaign managers those jobs really ARE applied sciences, even experimental sciences, in the way we mean classically. So are large parts of computer science you never know what will happen with a large program, and there's only one experiment run the code. Rutherford's division of all science as ``either physics or stamp collecting`` is the division between induction and deduction, but also between past classification, and future-prediction that is necessarily uncertain. Often it's ONLY the time variable that brings uncertainty to induction (everything else you can easily fix with redefinition). All this must be explained. A fully applied science like engineering must be (almost) fully predictive (engineering experimentation goes on, but this is materials science and other physics-like disciplines). Much of political science and library science is not predictive but only explanatory. None of the humanities are at all predictive, and that may be what makes them humanities. The predictable part of the fine arts are the craft things, and they are sciences in the wider sense of word. And so on. This is the article to discuss all that.  The scientific method and philosophy of science should go in those articles, and only be summarized shortly here, inasmuch as it applies to only parts of ``real knowledge`` in many other disciplines. I would say that ``science`` implies an algorithm that you can reduce to a series of steps that will work. It's what's left that is humanities, history, fine art, and whatever is left of the ``softer`` disciplines after whatever algorithms and predictiveness they offer has been removed (as the parts that have been ``reduced to a science``) and you then look at whatever is left.  `