Rational for rationality's sake.

In Science, every piece of the puzzle must fit together.

What is the goal of Science?

Is it to tell me when or how many apples will fall from a tree tomorrow?

Or is it to explain why an apple falls to the ground, rather than straight up into the sky?

Is Science meant to rationally explain how some technology works?

Or is it meant to be the method by which one builds technology?

Unfortunately, to many of my contemporaries, these questions are misconceived. They will tell you that technology is FOUNDED upon Science and that hypotheses are guesses, or predictions about the future, while simultaneously claiming that Science is also a method of explaining nature's phenomena.

They ignore the nuanced, critical distinction between explaining past events and predicting future events. Let me make the difference clear: explaining a past event is purely conceptual. One obviously cannot possibly use their sensory system to evaluate an explanation (i.e. a theory) for some prior hypothetical event or phenomena.  The hypothesis is assumed, taken at face value, and then the theory for HOW it occurred is either rational or not; coherent or not; possible or not.

Future events are predicted and those predictions are evaluated by the sensory system only. Therefore, evaluations of predictions are subjective- confirmed or denied by personal experience through the senses.  This is subjective (i.e. not objective) by definition. Predictions cannot be rationally evaluated or analyzed conceptually, therefore they are not Scientific. Science is indeed the process of analyzing rationally.

Science is an entirely consistent set of hypothesis (sets of assumptions, including one's definitions of terms, models of objects, and initial scene relating the objects in question) and theories (explanation of the hypothesis). They are analyzed with regard to all of the other assumptions and explanations we have made about reality and evaluated based on their consistency as a conceptual whole. A theory/hypothesis cannot just be self-consistent, but consistent with the bigger picture. In other words, all Scientific theories/hypothesis all be consistent with each other, the underlying mechanisms provided by each theory must be rational and cannot contradict each other. That is how they are evaluated.

Research and experimentation may provide inspiration for aspiring Scientists to begin forming a unified, rational theory of physics, but what happens in the lab stays in the lab. Science isn't "proven" by experiments. Rather, the event of an experiment is purely assumed as a hypothesis and then explained with a theory. That is the Scientific Method. They say, "seeing is believing" but Science is not about seeing, proving, or testing; as all conclusions drawn from such activities are through the sensory system.

Science is rational for the sake of rationality. Science is not intended for 'practical purposes' or 'valuable technology'. It is a self-consistent set of explanations for existence, defined as: all objects with location in relation to each other.  It is purely conceptual, and is done for no reason other than to understand.  It is not the foundation of technology because the construction of technology requires interaction with and evaluation by one's sensory system. It is not a method of predicting the future because such predictions can only be confirmed via the senses. Science IS a coherent set of explanations for assumed past events. It is purely conceptual.