The older I get and the more I study, the more I realize some of the boundaries that we construct are just that: constructed boundaries. For example, the distinction between natural sciences, social science, and humanities. If you really think about the history of intellectual inquiry, most scholars of particular ages use general strategies and paradigms to produce knowledge. Eventually there are people who are "radical" enough to shift these conventions. So many scientific fields are offshoots of philosophy, hence why the highest level of academic attainment regardless of discipline is the Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy or as it is in Latin, Philsophiae Doctor). Basically what I'm saying is that I do not believe science only refers to certain fields and subfields, but rather refers to a broad set of practices that help us to understand the reality of our world, just like philosophy used. Just as philosophy transformed into science, maybe science evolves into another mode of inquiry. Whether or not science transforms into something radically different, I do believe that we need to have more discussions on what is considered to be science and what isn't, particularly as it relates to power dynamics and structural inequalities because how we construct and organize our knowledge also indicates some underlying truths about our society.