It should be possible to generate an appraisal of science that is valid regardless of holism/reductionism or objectivity/subjectivity. Objectivity and reductionism have become core elements of scientific endeavour but they need not be.

Science has the following components:

• theoretical structure
• methodology
• transferability

Science involves a structured approach to describing the natural world. A theoretical structure (or model) is created to describe natural phenonema and help understand them. If the model is a good one and it serves a useful purpose then it can remain an acceptable explanation for a considerable time.  In science it is recognized that knowledge does not stand still, but develops and changes along with human evolution.  Old theories are shown to be incorrect or incomplete. There is a procedure for gaining acceptance in the scientific community and as science progresses old models are constantly revised and redeveloped to better fit changing concepts of the world. 

The theoretical structure of science has been developed since the Renaissance using new definitions and new language in which words derived from Latin and Greek have been used to describe scientific concepts and give them scientific authority.

Science involves the creation of some form of method for interpreting/measuring the natural world. There are many accepted forms:

• observation (eg. Darwin's Origin of the Species). No doubt the most common form of scientific advancement. Not only did Darwin make his initial proposals as a result of observations made during his voyage on the Beagle, but a hundred years of further research by thousands of others backed up his findings with vast quantities of paleontological evidence.
• deduction (eg. Einstein's Laws, Watson and Crick's DNA molecule). Many great discoveries result from calculation and analysis using accumulated stores of mathematical and physical laws. Once repeated application has demonstrated their robustness then they become part of accepted knowledge.
• experiment (eg. B F Skinner's work with pigeons). Experimental method is a widely toted method for producing valid scientific results, however much scientific progress did not involve nor is accessible through scientific experiment (eg Darwinian evolution). Experimental method is a relatively recent introduction to science that is used to vigorously investigate the detailed end of larger scientific concepts, in Skinner's case the nature of learning in pigeons and by analogy humans too. Researchers normally develop the hypotheses that they test in scientific experiments through a process of observation and deduction. The experiment then simply becomes a way to verify what has already been observed and deduced.

Science involves creating knowledge that is easily transferable from one individual to the next after learning only a moderate amount of material. People should not need certain powers, like psychics or shamans, to partake of scientific knowledge. It is knowledge that should be available and usable by all people alike and easily transferable from one generation to the next in order for knowledge to accumulate and expand.

Good methodology and structure help with this transferability.

The need for scientific knowledge to be easily transferable created the desire within scientific practice to create knowledge that is 'objective', in that it is not vulnerable to any subjective judgment or belief on the part of the observer and is universal in its application . Although this is an admirable goal, the word 'objective' should probably be preceded by the word 'relatively', since true objectivity is rather hard to achieve, if not impossible.  It is increasingly becoming evident that the observer and his/her beliefs invariably intervene in the object of study in some way or other and many 'objective' studies end up creating a distorted view of the world because of a concerted effort to ignore the inevitable presence of subjective input.

Objectivity is best attributed to science which is in a transferable form such as in books or increasingly, multi-media.  In this form, science is recorded in as objective manner as possible.  Subjective science however comes into play in its implementation by trained professionals (see next section).

As stated the need for objectivity came about through the need to make scientific knowledge independent of subjective judgment and thus universal in its application, and to make it easily transferable from one person to the next so that knowledge could easily accumulate. Scientific knowledge is traditionally transferred using written texts, although this is now supplemented by multi-media, making the experience of learning more three dimensional.

The means of transfer, whether it is a text or multi-media presentation, is the 'objective' part of the process. Then, after a student is exposed to the information, they process it in a unique manner and find a way put it to their own use.  This is the 'subjective' part of the process. There are three important points here:

1. Objective science is theoretical, subjective science is practical
2. It takes time and energy to learn the discipline required to be able to effectively use any amount of scientific knowledge. What is learnt through the mind has to be developed by the body into useful actions and behaviours that reach the required goals. An engineering graduate has to be able to design and build useful components. A researcher with a PhD has to develop and carry out useful experiments.
3. Every student will process the same information differently. The same 'objective' truths will get quite different treatment from one individual to the next and result in quite different knowledge outcomes.

It is one thing to learn the 'objective' knowledge and be able to answer pen and paper tests correctly, but it is quite another thing to have the 'subjective' knowledge and to be able to apply oneself successfully in the field of action.

Science is essentially belief based. While the goal of objectivity is admirable, the reality is that it is an ideal, like democracy or Nirvana, that is worth striving for but never actually achievable, and it is the journey that is important not the destination.

Assumptions

Science is based on assumptions. Assumption is just another word for belief. Scientific assumptions do not come about randomly, they are a reflection of scientists' beliefs. They might be passed off as parsimonious explanations, but they are essentially belief based.

Research

Scientists, like all people, often conflict amongst themselves. Each side in a scientific conflict will seek out research that supports their particular point of view (or beliefs) and ignore research that opposes it. Some unscrupulous individuals even manipulate results to support their hypothesis.

Hypotheses

Seldom is an hypothesis proposed randomly. Scientists often have some kind of an emotional stake in any hypothesis they are testing. In other words they believe it to be true, usually as a result of observations and deductions they have made. The belief is what sustains them through hours, days, months of testing and experimentation. Often their belief stands up to rigorous empirical testing and proves to be viable. If not, then the scientist might be encouraged to adjust their belief.

Science as a religion

The role that belief plays in the conduct of science is usually overlooked and science and all it stands for is often wrapped in an aura of authority and reverence that is often greater than it actually deserves. If science is viewed as a religion then the following might apply:

• Gods: objectivity, empirical evidence, logical deduction, statistical significance
• Rituals: scientific method, journal article formats
• Temples: Universities and Research Centres
• Sects: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Geology etc
• High Priests: University Lecturers, Research scientists. General Priesthood: scientists in the field
• Major Prophets: Aristotle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and many others
• Scriptures: works by the above and all minor prophets and disciples of science who are recognized to worship the same gods and use the same rituals. It amounts to a huge amount of material far beyond what any one person is capable of learning.

What we call 'secular' society may actually be society that has given over to scientific belief and we are so embedded in secularism that we do not realise the religiosity of our own behaviour. It is the same with all civilizations that ever came to be dominant: Because the Western knowledge system (science) is so effective compared to other knowledge systems, then it is considered by its proponents to be absolute and to be the only truly correct knowledge system. This should ring a bell with anyone who is aware of the attitude of the supporters of two of the major world religions in the wake of their establishment in Europe and the Middle East during the early part of the second millenium AD and still survives in many parts of the globe today.

As a belief system, science is much more complex, more robust, more universal and more effective than any other belief system previously known to mankind. There is nothing wrong with having a knowledge system that is based on belief. Belief and passion are what get things done. The big mistake would be to have a knowledge system which we think is absolute, infallible and let us say totally objective, but which in reality is based on 'arbitrary' belief brought about by historical and cultural circumstance.

If we are able to see our current science as being rooted in our evolutionary context, then we are more able to change it and modify it appropriately where needed. Flexibility enhances adaptability in the face of change. Currently the planet is facing challenges which appear daunting in the face of our current knowledge capabilities. No doubt these challenges will be overcome using scientific knowledge which is much different from the present.