I agree! This is why I made the distinction Science (n) vs science (v). We can look at Science (n) as scientism... I think science (v) is useful in determining some more-accuracies of our natural world. However, it is not the only tool. Some truths are purely subjective. (if not all...)

So, I think the tool (which can be one tool of many) of science (v) is overused, it's conclusions treated too concrete.

"I agree that scientific method is a tool that is useful for specific questions regarding our environment. Scientific method inductive reasoning, but the publication paradigm that necessitates mathematical statistics favors deductive reasoning. I think scientists do fall into the trap of using mathematical deductive reasoning in formulation of hypothetical postulates and confusing it with inductive scientific method."

Absolutely agree!

"Will we next build false gods to rule over us? How proud we have become. And how blind." (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri). I think some in the lay public has indeed replaced old religion for scientism, but I don't think science itself is the problem."

Beautiful! I agree science (v) in and of itself is a wonderful tool. It only becomes a religion/belief/problem when it purports to be the sole bearer and method of discerning truth when it becomes Science (n) (scientism).