The scientific method is only used to validate provisional models of reality against observation—it makes no ontological claim about the nature of reality itself.
Which is why philosophers of science like Lee McIntyre do not use the scientific method as their basis for defining science. Instead, there’s a way to flip the strategy on its head: define science not by its method but by its attitude. Funnily enough, the attitude is precisely what the comment says: embrace empiricism; assume reality is real and that we can understand it.
Fine, replace “reality” with “working model” then.
Besides evidence (what you see in front of you), there’s also reason (what you can deduce from first principles).
I’d say the key concept of science is that knowledge can be built upon. That there is not yet an answer to every question. That you can say “We don’t know but we’re working on it”. This was absolutely revolutionary in human affairs.
Maybe in the past? Modern science has shifted away from direct observation and more towards targeted probing. Modern science is about setting up intricate systems to answer a very specific question such that no matter what happens, you learn something new
IMO the key takeaway of modern science is that things are always more complex than we thought
It’s a little more complicated than that obviously. If you want the details once you get out of the shower, you can start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
There are always random flukes, or correlation confused with causation. I would probably add: The more consistent the observations, the closer they are to reality.