From AI and computer science to physics and cosmology, we assume science is the product of objective principles and experimental evidence. Many physicists however regard scientific theories as models rather than final descriptions of reality. As a result, critics argue, it's unclear what distinguishes science from tribal belief. Studies show status and hierarchy play a key role in the acceptance of theories. From Newton to Einstein counterevidence is ignored to retain the established theory. Some philosophers of science, like Paul Feyerabend, argue that experiments never settle the matter and science in some respects behaves like a "dogmatic religious institution".
Should we conclude that science is the religion of our time, with its priests and archbishops who determine which theories are pursued and which models deemed true? Should we see the distinction between science and pseudoscience as a fashion of the moment? Or is there something essential and radically different about the method and the procedures of science that places it in a unique position?