I've always been interested in the definition of 'science'. What makes one belief 'scientific' as opposed to non-scientific.
In order to approach science, we must assume that nature is lawful, deterministic and understandable. Of course, we all know that there are certain 'laws' of nature that exist and have been proven beyond doubt, but the majority of science consists of findings that result from studies that rely on an arbitrary probability of 95%+.
The idea that there are laws of nature proven beyond a doubt doesn't accord with the history of physics. Newton's conception of natural law was held to be "true" until it was upended by Einstein.
Karl Popper actually proposes a nice criterion to distinguish science from non-science. He argues (whether persuasively or no) that scientific claims are falsifiable, where non-scientific claims need not be. That allows us to distinguish between things like astrology, whose claims are generally not falsifiable, and mathematical astronomy, whose claims are falsifiable.
Science is not a belief system, it is a knowledge system and the distinction is quite precise and necessary. Science is a method for developing predictive models based on material observation and nothing else.
I wouldn't limit the goal of science to developing predictive models, to completely understand a behaviour we must also be able to describe, explain and control the behaviour.
I would suggest that describing and explaining a behavior is the same as constructing a predictive model of that behavior, and that controlling it is in the realm of engineering, not science.
The problem with that is that some things we currently regard as scientific can neither be described well or controlled. Quantum mechanics is a good example. The defining characteristic that still makes it science is that we can predict things using mathematical equations (although not as well as we would like).
Which brings me to an interesting question. If a hypothetical alien civilization develops technology using different types of math than us, different analogies than us (particles/wave, etc.), and different beliefs than us, is it still science? I would argue yes. If they can create sophisticated technology that is predictable, the end effect is the same that we humans have.
Which brings me to my last question. Is string theory science? Again, I would say yes. Because although its predictions are not currently capable of being tested, they are in principle capable of being tested with more sophisticated technology. There is a clear path to developing a test of its predictions.
So I think "science" can best be described as the pursuit of prediction.
In order to approach science, we must assume that nature is lawful, deterministic and understandable. Of course, we all know that there are certain 'laws' of nature that exist and have been proven beyond doubt, but the majority of science consists of findings that result from studies that rely on an arbitrary probability of 95%+.