Interesting thoughts, thanks for posting. My own path has been Engineering, which we might say is applied science.
A particular specialism of Engineering, ironically is multidisciplinary systems Engineering.
Its ironic because it requires the opposite of specialisms.
A further specialisation of that in turn, is Model Based Systems Engineering, or MBSE for short.
There we have a concept of metamodeling, which is the modeling of a model, the methodology of the modeling, usually expressed using a modeling language devised just for the purpose of metamodeling.
There also the concept of architectural frameworks, which contain the rules by which we carry out the work of the engineering, so this is the Engineering of the systems Engineering.
An architectural framework contains, or is based on one or more metanodels.
Anyhow all of this is science, it seems to me, but it's never much been back annotated into academic science, scientist seem to be avoidant of using it. I was not allowed to use it to carry out my own PhD candidate work which was ideally suited to being done model based, imho, because there were very few with the skills needed to evaluate my work in model form.
Anyhow this is a criticism I would make of both science and philosophy, neither seem willing to accept MBSE as a valid methodology which would vastly assist the scientific method by more rigorously tying all physical facts and laws together, enabling the proving / disproving of many scientific concepts and philosophies.
If a science of everything could ever be expressed, it would be in this form, I think. It would be the model of all models.
Its interesting that Ai (ChatGPT 3.5) appears to know all the concepts, and how to apply them to it's own work, it's the best systems Engineer I ever worked with.
Anyhow, I would obviously recommend science adopts some of these techniques as something that would assist in devising a science of science.
The maybe more fantastic realisation in all of this, is that science lately has gone off the rails of reality, much more than we might realise, with no formal methods of checking, how much of it is reality, and how much isn't.
The big bang theory looks highly suspect to me, there appears to be solid evidence that it is not the truth, but this is being ignored.
More ominously, science is getting some things wrong now which are existential.
The atmosphere being adiabatic does not lend itself to becoming any kind of thermal blanket, it's impossible, no matter how much CO2 might be there, it's all adiabatic therefore free to expand as necessary to cancel out temperature rise as a function of its own presence.
So the temperature rise we are measuring has to be direct indication of increase of entropy.
This means destruction. It means our net effect in history has been to steadily destroy the planet. CO2 is just a side effect, it's about more than fossil fuels, it's about all energy.
The fact is we don't use the only energy that can be used to reverse increase of entropy, because it's incompatible with profit.
The brutal truth is we can't make profit without destroying, pushing up the temperature.
The only way out of this is to monetise the energy of sunlight, which is coming in via all solar farms but never monetised, because that money would need to be handed out for free, since the energy of the sun was given for free, nothing in return per KWhr from the sun.
The fact is that the more profit driven business becomes focused on this issue, the more rapidly the temperature has to rise.
And look, right at the heart of profit, it's a lie, an energy lie, that money ever makes money.
Money makes money because the energy gained had to come extracted from the planet, outside anyone's awareness.
And look this is the exact mechanism used to bankrupt people into slavery.
What is slavery? Technically it's the restriction of a person's energy supply to little more than the minimum they need to metabolise to survive whilst doing the work demanded of them, work which always turns out to be energy extraction, from the planet, or even from people - hence armies.
Any more than that, and the slave might build up enough strength to overthrow their would be enslavibg masters.
Its pretty harsh stuff that comes out when tie down what is truth and what is lies, incompatible with survival of the species.
Maybe that's why we don't do it, I honestly don't know why we have never chased this down and killed it before, because it really is a live beast, the profit monster, it even had folk crucified in the past, for daring to question it.
Is that what stops us questioning it now, is it fear?
Ps sorry about spelling errors I am using phone and don't trust profit driven algos, and my sight not as good as it once was.