[falcolas]

What is nanotechnology, or modern optics, if not a collection of observations, leading to correlation and causality?

Sure, we have a few more observations to add to theirs, but the fields of study have advanced from that point, not from some completely different point.

Also, as stated, some fields of study today have sprung from this very piece of art.

[lincolnq]

I think the difference is that we have models that actually predict things. Science isn't just "combine stuff and see what happens" - it's "test hypotheses that lead to generalizable, simple models". We can see that apples fall from trees and predict that the future apples will fall, but science allows us to realize that that's the same mechanism which causes the sun to rise and set.

[falcolas]

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."[1]

Newton speculated about mass and gravity in the absence of knowledge or speculation of atomic interaction, and it's considered to be a scentific discovery... why couldn't the discovery of the effect of small particles of gold and silver in glass, and its practical application thereof, in the absence of knowledge of the electron behavior be any different?

[beernutz]

I think actually it was considered a scientific Theory. A theory in scientific terms is (I hope I get this correct) a hypothesis made from observable facts, that has stood up to many experiments that had potential to falsify it.

[bonemachine]

What is nanotechnology, or modern optics, if not a collection of observations, leading to correlation and causality?

Specifically: not merely a "collection of observations", but an organic body of reasoning, and understanding of core underlying phenomena (e.g. the mathematics of refraction/reflection; E/M radiation; physics of materials; that kind of stuff) that is far greater than the sum of its parts.