What you're criticizing isn't science, but epistemology. You're using the fallacy of composition to conflate information with the means to organize and utilize it. Science is a methodology, an abstract tool we've formulated to manage the knowledge we work with. If you input the wrong values into a mathematical equation because you took them on faith this does not reflect upon the mathematical process itself; 2+2 will still = 4 regardless of whether you should have used a 5 instead. The means to assess values and the means to process them are two completely separate areas and thus must be addressed independently.
The only assumption in play is the barest of assumptions necessary for a human mind to function - that knowledge itself is possible - but this is before we even begin to discuss science. Science is certainly used to organize and build upon information even if it's simply what we think we know, but the problem with your argument is that it causes you to fall short of your target. The accuracy or even potential inaccuracy of the information itself has no bearing on whether science is or is not the best means to evaluate and categorize it. However, without even a potential basis for knowledge you leave yourself bereft of grounds to assess truth and therefore unable to weigh in on the practicality of any method versus another. Your contention towards "human sense perception" is easily extended to human experience in totality rendering any conclusion you make inherently untenable since you yourself can only appeal to faith in your criticisms.