Recipes existed, worked, and were passed down long before the scientific method was devised.
Well, part of what he’s getting at there is that when people say cooking according to a recipe is…
Jack Preston King

What year would you say the scientific method was devised?

You keep skating by with these assertions. Well, let’s actually base them on something. You’re talking about human beings and human history. The first thing I asked about was a definition, and you keep absolving yourself of actually clarifying your statements.

Can you do that? Offer some kind of proof of what you are saying, instead of just saying recipes aren’t part of the scientific method.

Because what I am getting at is that the language of science is not the same as observing natural processes. Ravens don’t say they are using the scientific method.

But they do:

So lets try again: you say,

“So a recipe is not science — it’s cooking, an act which people with an inappropriately religious relationship to science claim as their own, when it long preexisted their faith. We can now understand in scientific terms how cooking works, but science doesn’t make it work, didn’t discover it, and exactly zero knowledge of the scientific method is required to make it work. My point in directing you to the article was to suggest that while my idea of what science is (an activity scientists participate in which is largely sold out to big business in our time) may be technically inaccurate on some grounds, yours may be, too. Every smart thing human beings ever did can’t be folded into science. That’s the lay positivist attitude he’s pointing to in the article.”

That’s not my attitude. My attitude is that every smart thing any creature does is a way of accessing objective reality. And that is all science is: observing natural processes in a way that allows you to repeat them and control them. Everything does that on some level.

That’s what a recipe is. How do you define science? Your definition so far says that scientists do science.

“I don’t think it is practically possible to separate science from scientists. If no one is doing science, there is no such thing as science. It’s a thing that is done. A method, as you say. And when someone does it, that someone is a scientist. It’s a distinction without difference.”

Well? What are scientists doing when they do science?