What has my character to do with the discussion?
"Arrogance" is the way you're attempting to frame the discussion.
No, its the way you are framing your replies. You insist that science have a 'formula' yet you agree that your understanding of science is naive. How is it that your opinion of what is necessary for a field of study to be called science should supersede the understanding and practice of science by scientists?
Science has no need for a 'formula' nor is it as simplistic as to strive for a single 'formula' before it can make decisions on the facts it has access to.
My point is, perhaps you should learn a little more about that which you attack before make pronouncements about it.