Those changes are actually pretty good Looking at this outline I think the article can be written like this if it is filled with would be editorwarnings of the type   To keep it from bloating up with that stuff Also there should be some fairly heavy warnings right up front I would expand the distinguish header to say something like This article is about the general term as it refers to many fields of reproducable knowledge including mathematics and applied sciences For the specific topics of experimental study by scientists see Natural science  As for specifics the first thing I would do is move the Formal sciences part ABOVE the scientific method since the full method as we know it isnt really used in the formal sciences And we need to talk about many of these including classificational sciences and methadologies statistics etc before we get to the scientific method in which all these feature as taken for granted outofthebox tools not fields of study  The other thing that distinguishes the experimental sciences from those that merely describe formal sciences but also political science and government theory which begins to look like the study of history is that experimental sciences include the variable of TIME Thus they all succeed or fail in whether they are not only explanatory but also predictive And the predictiveness must include the future as well Prediction is very hard especially about the future sounds like something Yogi Berra would have said and he is credited with it sometimes but its actually first said by Neils Bohr Who knew that retrodiction is prized in science if it flows naturally from a theory the theory doesnt look too ad hoc but prediction is even more highlyprized And one must discuss this When a theory explains something that has already happened like a lot of political science its retrodiction But nobody expects historials to predict the future and nobody really hires polisci profs to be political consultants and campaign managers those jobs really ARE applied sciences even experimental sciences in the way we mean classically So are large parts of computer science you never know what will happen with a large program and theres only one experiment run the code Rutherfords division of all science as either physics or stamp collecting is the division between induction and deduction but also between past classification and futureprediction that is necessarily uncertain Often its ONLY the time variable that brings uncertainty to induction everything else you can easily fix with redefinition All this must be explained A fully applied science like engineering must be almost fully predictive engineering experimentation goes on but this is materials science and other physicslike disciplines Much of political science and library science is not predictive but only explanatory None of the humanities are at all predictive and that may be what makes them humanities The predictable part of the fine arts are the craft things and they are sciences in the wider sense of word And so on This is the article to discuss all that  The scientific method and philosophy of science should go in those articles and only be summarized shortly here inasmuch as it applies to only parts of real knowledge in many other disciplines I would say that science implies an algorithm that you can reduce to a series of steps that will work Its whats left that is humanities history fine art and whatever is left of the softer disciplines after whatever algorithms and predictiveness they offer has been removed as the parts that have been reduced to a science and you then look at whatever is left