What aren't the flaws?
What aren't the flaws?
Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?
Um, it works remarkably well?
It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.)
Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken, that is why it is subject to revision and peer review. Well-established and tested theories, though have proven their validity over and over again.
Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.
These statements are completely untrue. Einstein's theories have proven themselves to be remarkably accurate along many separate lines of inquiry.
It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?
This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.
Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other. Scientists profit from proving/disproving new theories, and have to withstand each other's attacks constantly.
The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.
And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window. That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research. There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.
But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.
Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent, now. What would you suggest we replace it with?