Quite often, we find many arguments being claimed as scientific implying authenticity of the statement.
What is often forgotten are limits of 'science' the way we define.
In science, we consciously choose some specific techniques which can be classified as 'divide & conquer' or 'abstract'; and often their combination (in any case, the big picture is lost). This restricts the space in which our theories operate and hence its validity. Further, our hypothesis are validated with deduction, contradiction or induction. Most logical, in the general sense of 'logic', being the former and least being induction as induction is more of an extrapolation. Quite often the dependence on a priori knowedge even for the former limits the validity of hypothesis testing.
These limits the scope of science to a limited space, data (pure data from the limited space is often hard to come by, in the attempts of scientific approaches in daily life) on which our theories are based and However, we apply or extend theories quite often these limitations are overlooked and scientific premises are presented and accepted more like gospel truths, abusing the very value and sanctity of 'science'.
