@jessiehenshaw2, I'm sure @helmutleitner would like what you just wrote here about science:

"My interest in his operational diagram for "how science works" started from how it looks to be inconsistent with the ruling scientific theory of how nature works. It shows the relation between science and nature as associating "causation in natural systems" with the "formal implications of science", mediated by the scientific practices of "encoding and decoding" what we find. One implication I took from that is that for science to have anything to study it really must acknowledge that the causations of nature need to be considered as having their own meanings and existence. Another implication I found in it is that nature is then implicitly the common subject of study for all the sciences, so multiple sciences could compare notes to learn from each other, as it were, to find how differing paradigms of interpretation deal with same subjects.

Both of those seem quite antithetical to the modern philosophy of science offered by Popper and Bohr, etc, holding that science can only study data and represent nature as the equations that statistical analysis converges on, and so imply statistically that the universe works by too. As I see it, the Pattern Language transformation of the sciences (my sense of PLAST), builds on that interpretation of Rosen, for addressing the problem that different paradigms of inquiry find different design patterns. One would like that to open up new ways for observers of natural design patterns to compare notes, and start untangling the great mess created by some hundreds of years of quite exclusionary reductions of nature to convergent mathematical approximations. "

I think it's actually the goal of pattern language practice especially the type promoted by Helmut, to observe natural patterns, and cut across sciences.