Pavel's response to me (the first part of three) arguing against the definition of science as a tool. His point seemed to be that if we regard science as a tool it means we are putting something between ourselves (the subject) and reality (the object), and thus we can never know reality but only the tool used to view reality.
I would agree with this, but I don't think it challenges the definition of science as a tool to understand reality. The fact that we have a subjective and relative view of the absolute and objective reality neither indicates the non-existance of the absolute and objective reality nor the pointlessness of the subjective and relative view. In all paradigms the aim is to move the view closer to reality.
In this way if science demonstrates something we are forced to accept it, as I think Pavel said; however what we are forced to accept is not clearly defined. If something is demonstrated we accept that it happens, but why it happens and what that means is open to debate and interpretation.
It is unclear how Pavel proposes to know reality without using any tool or technique.
In the last paragraph Pavel asks for what does science serve; science serves to better understand reality by using the tool of science to answer a very specific type of question. In that sense science serves the same purpose as philosophy, economics, art, politics and a host of other paradigms -- the only difference is the type of question being asked and the method used to answer it.
As an aside, the technique was not previous to science. The scientific method was developed along with the notion of science; people described the technique and said "we shall call this science". And so it was.
