As you say, the true "science" of a matter isn't determined by opinion. Likewise, true "science" generally has a provable theorem, generally mathematic, that can be proven from start-to-finish in some way. "Sciences" like anthropology, palentology, sociology (thrown in for all of the "social scientists in this world"), et. al. are made from observations and selected findings. Selected findings can many times be just an available set of bones that have been found. DNA tracing has been the closest thing to science, in my opinion to date, but still involves some bit of probability and chance (you'll never hear an expert on the stand saying "there's a 100% surety that so-and-so's DNA IS the same as exhibit A").
In the end, they are still observations and the theories are mainly the result of the influence of human experience on the thought process working overtime to establish "how it must have been."
I don't know the truth, and I don't think the truth can be conclusively proved (unless somebody has a time machine we don't know about). Then, what remains is belief, and that is what sets the two groups apart. One content in the spiritual, and the other using the argument as a means to control.
Then, what remains is belief, and that is what sets the two groups apart. One content in the spiritual, and the other using the argument as a means to control.
Belief equals faith. There are two sides: 1) if man can't determine why something happens, and he is spiritual, then he had faith in God making it happen. 2) if man can't determine why something happends, and he is a pure scientist, then he lacks funding, and leaves research.