What is science?

This.

The scientific method should define science to be something like:
the pursuit of finding evidence that is reliable and valid in order to disprove held concepts about a certain part of reality

...disprove or support held concepts about a certain part of reality

This.

The purpose of science is to bridge the gap between one person's understanding and another's, this gap is caused by the inherently subjective nature of perception.

One person sees magic, another sees something mundane, one person sees something coming from nothing, another sees a transformation

Science bridges this gap by creating a set of assumptions from which any number of people can participate in an investigation that will result in findings all involved can share

For instance if two people are trying to investigate a creaky house without scientific assumptions, one could find ghosts and another could find structural stress and be unable to come to an agreement

But if they enter into the investigation having agreed beforehand that a ghost will be defined as such and such reading on a measuring device both of them can use, then the results of their investigation regarding ghosts can be satisfyingly conclusive to both of them, they simply make their measurements and compare those to the assumptions

Now perhaps after the investigation, one of the parties decides the assumptions were unsatisfactory, so the system isn't foolproof, but it just means they have to come up with new assumptions and try again

The process of science is inherently about measurements, I would say, because measurement is the essence of objectivity, it transcends the limitations of subjective perception

Now all of this is just theoretical, when science is carried out by fallible humans who take shortcuts there will be counterexamples, furthermore a large part of science is figuring out how and what to investigate, and isn't strictly involved with this measurement process I described above, but it's still very much part of science

Would you say mathematics and logic are sciences?

They have sets of assumptions that are agreed upon. People can investigate claims, reliably coming to the same conclusions.
What would "measurements" be there?

Science is empiricism and repeatable falsfiable experiments, as well as conjecture and models that are to be considered only until more empiricism and falsifiable experiments come along to confirm/reject said hypotheses and models in favor of new, more accurate ones.

No, because they're not empirical. They are the tools by which science is most often done however.

Why is being empirical a requirement?

I thought the purpose was bridging understandings through operating within an agreed upon set of assumptions. That can be done analytically, too.

>Why is X defined as X and not Y?
Stupid question. Science is a word people use to refer to a specific thing. Why does "dog" refer to a dog and not all animals?

>What is science
Science is the discovery of claims, through experimentation in-line with the scientific method, that cannot (currently) be disproved.

They are true by definition. They are not falsifiable because we can't conceive a world in which 1 does not equal 1 or x does not equal x because by definition x is x.

Science is just testing hypotheses and shit like that , using stats to show significance and letting an idea lean towards a certain conclusion. It's fallible, should be reproducible and can NOT be proven, but rather, can be disproven.

I was using his own definition of bridging understandings and so on. Empiricism didn't seem to be a requirement for that, but rather one of the cases derived from the definition.

I also don't think that the case for what people refer to by the term "science" is as clear-cut as you seem to think, as evidenced by the fact that philosophers can't seem to agree on a definition. Just look at the list of the OP.
Whose definition am I supposed to take? Popper's? Kuhn's? Feyerabend's? Laudan's? Systematicity theories?

Look at this guy: He claims that an epistemological principle for the sciences is falsifiability. What if I l, like Feyerabend, say that it's not?

Science is the method by which we reduce our biases

>The purpose of science is to bridge the gap between one person's understanding and another's

yeah, no

What is it then?

Freyrabend, Baby! Anything goes! Theology is a science, suck it fegs. only objection to that is butthurt.

but seriously, I did a philosophy of science class and when it cam to Feyerabend all the STEM undergrads in the room completely devastated "y-you can't just do that" despite his well reasoned arguments.

>They are true by definition.
And yet people can make still errors in a completely deductive system, which is why those systems need to be investigated systematically That systematic process of that investigation with the goal of gaining knowledge (scientia), too, is science.

Restricting science to falsifiable claims is needlessly restrictive.

>Freyrabend
>"One can show the following: given any rule, however "fundamental" or "necessary" for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite."

muh nigga

Ishii Shirō just did unethical science, but I don't think that anyone would say that he didn't do science.