Scientific method

You shouldn't think of science as reducible to merely the scientific method we were taught in high school. Science means using logic, rationality and reason to explore the world. If someone has a better method then they're perfectly free to posit it, but faith without evidence is a method that fails reliably and obviously.

Science proceeds by collecting empirical data (data obtained through the senses), formulating hypotheses which unify/explain that data, and then devising experiments to show which of a group of hypotheses designed to explain a given phenonemon are more or less likely to be true.

Scientific reasoning crucially relies on induction. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion, but not to guarantee it.

Many, probably most philosophers think science is a valuable way, maybe the best way, of acquiring knowledge about certain kinds of things. How much did it rain in Brazil last year? Is it likely to rain in New York tomorrow? How old is the earth? These are all questions about which science is an authority.

But philosophers typically think there are other questions for which science is not an authority. Philosophers are often interested in what cam be known independent of empirical investigation. This includes what can be known by introspection, logical amd mathematical reasoning, and by focusing on those features of experience which are readily available to everyone, and so require no special research.

The classic reason philosophers tend to think some questions are outside the scope of science is because science is, as before, inductive. Inductive reasoning can never provide certainty, but it seems like we know some things with certainty. For example 1+1=2, and bachelors are unmarried. We don't learn eithet of these through empirical research or experiment in a laboratory.

Ethical questions also seem beyond the scope of science to answer. Science might tell us what the majority believe to be good, but that wouldn't tell us whether the majority is right, unless we make the further assumption that good is what thr majority believes is good. But science can't justify this assumption, or it's denial. It's not subject to any experiment.

Edit to add: philosophy is also useful within science itself. This is most noticable during what Kuhn calls a structural revolution. This is when the basic underlying assumptions most scientists take for granted get overturned. For example, when relativity theory arose to challenge newtonian mechanics.

But scientists also utilize philosphy when deciding between theories of which they are unable to devise an experiment to test. Which theory seems the most, well, reasonable?

Observe something. Predict what might happen. Test. Watch results. Update prediction. Test again.
Repeat until results are always the same as prediction.