Science is just observation and experimentation.
Science doesn't dictate how you do the above. Now, someone would find it impossible to reproduce your findings, but - that would just suggest bad science
For example, if your metric is "time spent interacting on the platform", then a testing of a rollout of a feature ends up with longer page load times, so users spend more time there because they're waiting for pages to load would increase that metric, and management decides it's a good idea.
That's not enough. If you don't include some sense of both 'systematic' and 'rigorous' (and yes, these terms are slippery), you aren't doing science.
Until you can objectively measure how "systematic" and "rigorous" an experiment is, your definition of science only applies to you.
We haven't been doing science for very long. The primary difference is the desire and effort to add rigor and systematic thinking. The difference in efficacy is hard to understate.
