Yes, the scientific method is a specific kind of probabilistic reasoning that works remarkably well in practice: you make a guess about how the world works, you design an experiment, and either reject the theory or not. You can only reject a theory, but never confirm it with absolute certainty. Theories that disagree with experiment are rubbish. Theories that pass the test of many experiments are believed to be true only with very high probability. Theories that can't be tested are outside the realm of science.
Which means that as a scientist (aka natural philosopher) one must take _as a given_ that:
* Happenings that are observed in the external world are related (cause and effect exist)
* The principle of sufficient reason applies to all effects (there must be a cause sufficient to explain the effects in all cases)
* Everything is not unique (there are categories and kinds - "all chairs" is a valid statement describing something that exists in reality)
* What is observed is related to reality (the external world is knowable)
There's much more that a natural philosopher must take for granted, just as there are many physical facts that biology takes for granted. One cannot prove these using the scientific method, because the scientific method presupposes these principles.
They do.
> Do they see science is subject to reason
Yes, the scientific method is a specific kind of probabilistic reasoning that works remarkably well in practice: you make a guess about how the world works, you design an experiment, and either reject the theory or not. You can only reject a theory, but never confirm it with absolute certainty. Theories that disagree with experiment are rubbish. Theories that pass the test of many experiments are believed to be true only with very high probability. Theories that can't be tested are outside the realm of science.