An exponentially increasing volume of information is one of the characteristics of the contemporary world. One of the downsides of such an influx is a growing amount of misinformation resulting from ignorance, misinterpretation of data, and deliberate manipulation. While it is possible to address the problem by applying a scientific approach, this is rarely done, mostly due to the unpopularity of the concept of science in the popular perception. The following paper argues that the concept of science is both relevant and useful in practical terms by analyzing popular misconceptions and identifying key characteristics attributable to the topic. Definition of Science In order to analyze the concept of science, it is necessary to first consider its definition. While there is no single agreed-upon definition of science, several similarities can be identified. Most commonly, science is referred to as a certain body of knowledge that is organized and systematized to simplify its use whenever the necessity arises. Often (but not always) the definitions also specify the application of specific principles to the process of gaining new facts and systematizing the existing body of knowledge. Finally, some definitions clarify the nature of knowledge by suggesting that science explores the fundamental principles of existence. These definitions also emphasize the involvement of the scientific method in the process, and this deserves a separate mention. As can be seen from the definitions, in most cases, science is treated as a database of knowledge. In some cases, it is seen as a process of expanding this database whereas only some clarify its nature and the purpose of engaging in scientific inquiry. Importantly, such an approach creates a distorted perception, leading to misconceptions about the concept of science. Common Misconceptions One of the most widespread misconceptions is the perception of science as a rigid, immutable collection of rules and principles that inherently resists modification. The two most apparent takeaways in this instance are a reliance on historical data as the definitive authority and the alleged inability (or reluctance) of science to accept new findings and modify the worldview as a result. Both arguments are actively employed by the proponents of various scientific practices and the researchers of paranormal phenomena. The best example for this scenario can be taken from the domain of alternative medicine. Many advocates of natural medications maintain that science does not approve the use of their remedy of choice because the healing properties involved lie beyond the scope of current scientific knowledge, and they readily point to “authority” as used to suppress any evidence in their favor. Another example is a similar argument used by believers in the paranormal who argue that “traditional science” is unable to accept fringe theories as the consequences would disrupt the established order. While the latter assertion is certainly true, the remainder of the argument could not be further from the true concept of science. Essentially, these misconceptions treat science as a stagnating system of arbitrarily assigned authorities who are invested in the preservation of the status quo of prevailing knowledge. According to this perspective, all changes are unw