The basic preposition of scientific method is that there are experiments that can be repeated to confirm or disprove a theory. In reality, you will likely never repeat an experiment, so science becomes a second-hand knowledge and authority and faith play a crucial role.
For a more authoritative scientist it is easier to promote a wrong theory and being believed to without much proofs. We have a track record of this in history. e.g., scientists believing machines cannot fly, or that man can’t drive faster 50kmph (the head would explode, lol). (TODO: check that I am remembering these correctly).
Vice versa, for a no-name scientist, it is much harder to promote a correct theory. e.g., a doctor who suggested that doctors should wash their hands was considered ridiculous.
Also, the authority of scientific papers might not get checked or quotes put off-context. As an example of former, there are multiple trash papers published by scientific journals (e.g., computer-generated scientific-looking papers), or as a pinnacle: “Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List” is an actual science paper accepted by a journal. As an example of later, there are many common-day myths that are “backed-up by science,” where science means a non-peer-reviewed paper or quote from a paper completely off-context. e.g., the fact that human needs 2 liters of water per day is literally next to a sentence that says most of that water comes from food. Also, a highly-quoted “number of microbes in human body” can be tracked back to a back-of-envelope calculation in a non-peer-reviewed paper (IIRC).
This is not to say that science is fundamentally flawed or wrong, but rather that we might be putting too much faith into it.
TODO: assumptions of science