The reason science differs from all other methods of acquiring knowledge is that the process of doing science and arguing science weeds out individual prejudices.
Science is driven by what works, and that is beyond the control of philosophy, religion, politics and ambition. Frauds are weeded out with a vengeance. Those who falsify data are never taken seriously again.
There are huge personal incentives to find errors in other people's work. The raw data collected by researchers is reanalyzed by others. Statistical tests are done to detect fudged data.
Because of this, the number of hoaxes and frauds in science can be listed on a page -- most detected within a few years -- while hucksters in religion and politics enjoy lifetimes of personal success.
Mostly true I suspect..
Must be why Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete... and did..
Religion and politics are reciprocals both quantify and police morality..
The Big Bang is yet to be rendered silly though..
This is true. Reliability, predictability, repeatability, and so on are the goals. The scientific method is not the only player in the game.
An important caveat here. There is nothing worse than thinking we are right when we're not. The moment we are convinced that individual prejudice has been eliminated is the moment we should reengage an important step in the scientific process: critical doubt.
I know one of one particular prejudice that plagues even the best. It pops up after we've done all the weeding out. It has certainly plagued the modern era. It is the very weakness that has introduced post-modernism. This weakness assumes that being correct and without prejudice in one way, gives us the confidence we are without prejudice in other ways.
The prejudice of science has a special name: scientism. The prejudice of science holds "that truth and knowledge of reality can be derived only as outcomes of the scientific method."