I'd call scientific method without step 7 incomplete or immature science, or recreation, or, if it's for evil purposes, antiscience. I think the only part of nature that should not be controlled is that which has free will, such as humans, or those with imminently potential free will, such as fetuses. If all of nature comes to have free will, then I'd agree that it should only be collaborated with rather than controlled.

What is currently called science is partly science, partly recreation and partly antiscience. Antiscience is immoral and real science needs to be used to help show that antiscience isn't science, i.e. conventional science that endangers society is antiscience. Using subliminal manipulation, peer pressure, ridicule, force, forced taxation, unfair discrimination, or any other trick is abuse, which is antiscience.

Is there any reason the 7 step scientific method I outlined above would not be able to reveal which supposed sciences are actually antiscience? And isn't the failure to identify antiscience what has allowed conventional science to become largely antiscience? Sociocracy can likely help improve scientific method to distinguish between science and antiscience. Right?