The title of your thread is, "Two types of science," but if someone assigned me to read your message and then list your two types, the best I could come up with would be that one type of science has a larger body of available techniques and is observable by more human senses than the other. Is that all you meant?
Yes, but if one is limited to fewer human senses, the scientific method, in some peoples' opinions, could become too vague to draw conclusions worthy enough to become politically established in a diverse society.
This is a difference in number and not in character and doesn't seem a very meaningful difference.
I think it's a difference in character, when the number of angles of exploration is so low that testability and falsifiability become weakened to the point of non-existence. After all, that is the reason the concept of Intelligent Design has failed in court cases.
And what happened to Faith's claims about the "unwitnessed/prehistoric past" being unamenable to study because of lack of witnesses from the past?
I'm not Faith, if she said that unwitnessed past is
totally unamenable to naturalistic study, then I would disagree with her. My opinion is that it could be partially possible to study it from a naturalistic standpoint, but not thoroughly enough to be considered scientific in the public domain.
Also, worldviews and other sources of scientific knowledge would be a different topic - could you please remove your last paragraph?
I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable. That's the only way I'm willing to discuss it, and it's not important to me if it's in one of the science forums or not. If you won't promote it that's fine, but it may indicate that what Boulder-dash opened
this thread with could have some merit.