I want to provide two beautiful texts of the mature Peirce defining what a science is. I do not call the solitary studies of a single man a science. It is only when a group of men, more or less in intercommunication, are aiding and stimulating one another by their understanding of a particular group of studies as outsiders cannot understand them, that I call their life a science. Scientific growth is not only the accumulation of data, of registrations, measurements or experiences. Peirce identified science as a diligent inquiry into truth for truth's sake developed by a community of inquirers skilled in the manipulation of particular instruments, and trained in some ways of perceiving or peculiar modes of thought.
Sciences are traditions of research which have developed in both time and space.
Science is a way of life, a craft handed down from masters to apprentices. For this reason, the key to the advancement of knowledge and to the development of sciences is not revolution, but communication. Communication between the members of a science community is essential for scrutinizing the evidence and the results achieved in research. More specifically, Peirce clearly asserts that the scientific community far from being an assembly or a parliament, whose members fight each other with fierce arguments, should be more like a family. In this respect, scientific practice is unfortunately quite different.