Science is possibly the best way for us to apply logic to accumulated knowledge that we have, as a group, as as society. Of course, what applies to the group also applies to an individual within it – there are correct ways for testing claims, and there are incorrect ones, period.
And yet, from the purely logical perspective, it has flaws. You can’t prove, scientifically, that there is no God, but you can determine it by logically analyzing your data. You will have no formal proof but you will have a correct logical conclusion, nonetheless. The scientific method is encumbered by the need to operate within the social context which invokes it. This bureaucratic burden does not apply to individual thinkers.
(Am I making sense? This idea is half baked, please feel free to point out its flaws)
Another issue is scientific discovery – how do we come by the claims we later test using The (Scientific) Method? How do we identify patterns in our environment? How does this intuition work, and how far do you go with it until you submit your ideas to the scientific bureaucracy to test? All science can do is follow in the wake of one’s brilliance and test their claims for veracity, but it has nothing to say about the creative process itself.
And, lastly, our science is marred by fashions, by herd-thinking, by the refusal of most scientists to question established scientific and social dogma, by a multitude of mediocre intellects that, mediocre as they may be, still have a voice and still participate in the peer-review process.
This is why science can hold on to incorrect ideas for centuries until finally getting it right. But, eventually, it does, and I am hoping it will happen in psychology. Sometime in my lifetime, that is….