[Chris2048]

It's not even limitations. It's studies that are non-peer reviewed, or non-replicated (not failed to replicate sometimes, just hasn't yet been replicated).

Especially certain subjects where poor, biased, studies seem rife. They take a study and run with it because a scientific study is "science", even if a study is just one step one the way to an accepted truth.

Sometimes is more explicit, cherry-picking certain studies over others; possibly even dismissing those with the "bad" result as biased (or *-ist).

[BitwiseFool]

Not all science is equal, either. A paper published in an evolutionary psychology journal is not as valid as the theory of evolution itself. Yet, we tend to lump everything in under "Science".