The Scientific Method

Simply having passive sensory experiences is not the same as specifically implementing the scientific method, which entails at least some level of intentionality and openness to repeat observation that are not present behind mere sensory perceptions.  Any material environments in existence, any objects within those environments, and the ways in which various physical things interact nonetheless have a scientific nature, though scientific and sensory are not identical concepts; not everything pertaining to the senses is scientific, and, of course, the senses are far more phenomenological than related to physical existence, though there is no scientific perception apart from them.  Across everyday life, however, even someone who does not care for scientific investigation or phenomena will still perceive these matters frequently, from the most familiar to the most exotic correlations they encounter.

Scientific correlations are ultimately a matter of sheer happenstance, practical factors, in one sense.  Despite being subject to repeated observation through the senses, they are not necessary truths like logical axioms and other logical truths; they are also not the uncaused cause without which causally contingent things like the cosmos could never have come into existence.  They remain important for human life on one level due to how they relate to human convenience, safety, and general physiological flourishing.  Despite how to varying extents, people have to rely on some of these correlations--such as how drinking water can satisfy thirst, how pressing a switch can activate lightbulbs, and how refrigeration can preserve food for longer periods of time than free exposure to bacteria--many people are not especially observant in this regard or do not necessarily care to contemplate beyond the bare minimum needed to survive.

Everyone with functioning senses is still in experiential proximity to scientific phenomena, as one does not have to be a scientist by profession to perceive or be intrigued by or understand (as far as limited, subjective perceptions of correlations goes) things and events in the physical world.  In truth, not only is the material world utterly trivial compared to the necessary truths of logic that transcend and govern it, as well as to the uncaused cause, but it is also not knowable as far as science goes beyond subjective perceptions, correlations being among these.  Correlations are found constantly in sensory life: exposure to sunlight are correlated with sunburns, scratching skin with the alleviation of itching, and turning a key in a car's ignition with activating the engine are just some of them.  They do not prove anything more than that one is perceiving correlations, and even the most consistent correlation that falls short of a logically provable causal relationship could be an illusion where the true cause of a thing is unseen or seemingly unrelated.

Now, someone who foolishly obsesses over science to the exclusion of rationalism will probably not realize all of this, or they will at a minimum not care that science at most hints at certain logically possible activities within the universe, never actually confirming them beyond the level of potentially illusory evidences, while reason is really at the heart of this truth more foundationally than science.  There is nothing rational about fixating on or even excelling at navigating the sensory correlations of science without first understanding the superior nature of reason, epistemologically and metaphysically, including how science is mostly practical in its application while reason is inherently abstract and practical in all things.  

The scientific method is usually either trivialized to the point of ignoring its still-significant relevance to human life, perhaps even hated by some of the many modern people who benefit from the technological and medicinal advances it leads to, or glorified as if the material world could possibly be what constitutes the necessary truths and absolute certainties of logic, or as if it has some grand moral value apart from God's nature.  Relied on every day, and still not to the same omnipresent, all-encompassing extent that everything constantly relies on the laws of logic, the scientific method has its place in the nature of reality, and that place is routinely exaggerated or rejected by irrationalists of different kinds.