I agree that if you define science as broadly as you do above, science
exists in every human society. I just don't think this loose definition of science is useful. The social relations necessary to produce practical knowledge in hunting and gathering societies differ dramatically from the social relations necessary to produce scientific
knowledge in industrial societies, and your broad definition gets in the way of analyzing those differences. (How can we understand all the different types of fruit if we name them all "apple"?)
Miles
^^^^^ CB: On this thread we are comparing science and religion. It is appropriate to discuss the broader historical definition of science or materialism, in that context. I had said nothing is unknowable in principle by "science" especially referring to religious ideas that God is an unknowable mystery. You said that it was a grandiose claim by me.
Alright, term the genus or fruit "materialism", and term the specific disciplines ( apple) or species of Europe "science". However, it is most likely that in building pyramids or canals or doing metalurgy or ancient medicine disciplines which modern scientists would recognize as physics/geometry or chemistry were adhered to.
It's important to grasp the more general or genus concepts of materialism for the purpose of inventing new disciplines.