I wasn't pointing at the reason for science so much as how it works.
The Scientific Method in the positive is a logical fallacy (of a basic syllogism) when you extrapolate your data.
The Scientific Method in the negative is a logical proof (basic syllogism again) in the same scenario.
x before y,
x can exist independently of y, but we assume y is there because of x is the positive of the scientific method, which is why we always call scientific ideas of a positive to be postulates, natural laws, and theories (though theory is the most complete of the three). Anything stated by science in the positive is subject to change without exception.
x denies y.
therefore not y.
this is an example of science in the negative. We have a fact that says in these circumstances, x does not allow for the existence of y. We can extrapolate that fact into a more solid idea by finding out more situations where x bars the existence of y.
Science tells us not what is, but what isn't. From that we can safely make assumptions in place of actual knowledge of what is.
To reference the daodeching and some hermetic science (hope no-one hits me for the two being mixed)
Never underestimate the value of what doesn't exist. The spokes on a wheel give it form, but the shaft in the hub makes way for the axel. Without windows and a door, a room is but a tomb.
and in hermetics,
what is is not knowable until you can perceive what isn't.
hence my argument.
(I've got Taoism, hermetics, and syllogisms on my side, what could possibly go wrong?) <- failed attempt at humor.