My two personal cases when I may have doubts about things covered by "science" label: Imagine a scenario with an imminent public risk that can cause social dis

My two personal cases when I may have doubts about things covered by "science" label: Imagine a scenario with an imminent public risk that can cause social disorder. A science related risk. The people in power can order the scientists to withhold parts of the true in order to prevent panic. The scientists themselves may not only agree with this, but recommend it, because it is easier to deal with the problem at hand having the masses calm and relatively rational than having a mob of angry animals. We may safely presume that not everything is told to us. (One must need to be in a restricted circle to know something and then caring the responsibility of being in that circle prevents disclosure.) The ideal scientific doctrine is taught to be open to anything the universe has to offer, but in reality we have to admit that the science we actually have is open only about things that it can explain within a reasonable accuracy. When it cannot, it is very similar to an ordinary religion, deeming the reports or observation of unexplainable things as doubtful or outrightly denying them. There is a procedure similar to religious excommunication for the courageous souls that dare to leap and study things that ca not yet be thoroughly explained in the conservative way using an increasing amount of evidence. (The mantra is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".) I cannot therefore make a distinction between a scientist that chooses to just deny something out of fear for tarnishing his name and a politician who shirks from something that's right but unpopular.