Perhaps it is because my field is "applied physics", which is en empirical science, where everything is based on experimental evidence. And new evidence triggers continuously a change of the rules.Then they aren't really based on science.
Yes, our understanding of science changes, like the involuntary breath I never seem to take, but science will correct itself over time. BS won't.
I agree that "true science" should only be what is called an "exact science". There is only one exact science, and this is math. All other sciences have some contamination from experimental evidence.
Unfortunately math alone does not suffice for most applications, hence the need of these not-exact sciences, which are systematically failing by some amount in how they describe reality.
In all these scientific fields there is always some amount of error, which should be managed and taken into account. Only a not-scientist thrusts entirely on the results of scientific calculations or simulations, a scientist is always suspicious.
Regarding the fact that science "correct its errors by itself over time", unfortunately also this is a myth.
In realty, errors tend to propagate and to become strongly embedded in scientific theories. Usually a profound breakthrough is required for dismantling old consolidated theories, and these disruptions are rare, and often caused by special men which pass to the history for destroying a high pile of previous scientific theories which were based on some wrong assumption. These people are initially considered heretics and the scientific community rejects them together with their new theories, until finally some proof is so strong that the previous wrong theory is finally discarded.