In your zeal to declare science all-powerful, you neglect to account for an infinitesimal fact wedged between existence and "Truth".

You can prove that there are at least the two distinct areas of study which are applicable to the nature of existence, but you cannot prove that they will find ultimate answers which are "TRUE" for any and all 'geometries' or frames of reference, or whatever relativism might be invoked. That is the ultimate difference between science, as a means of learning, and faith as a means of determining "TRUTH". They intertwine in fascinating and unexpected ways, and often in uncomfortable and undesirable ways, but neither exists in a vacuum. For "SCIENCE" to be something of value you must eschew "TRUTH" and remain agnostic about validity of theories, and this is a seemingly transitive equality, to accept faith, one must eschew relativism in some domains.

The really interesting element for all of this is, how does this zero-sum-game between objectivism and absolutism affect the human condition?

Mod this up, not just interesting but incredibly precise. I had never considered looking at Bayes applicability to P=1 and P=0 concepts, but if you follow this math, its just as illuminating as Godel's theorms of incompleteness. Godel attempts to prove that a finite mathematic system or language is also finite, AND requires a-priori statements which are entirely outside of (neither provable, nor dis-provable) from within the finite mathematics. Also see how these statements are consistent with modern physics (Fermi et. al.).

Compare these structural statements and tell me they don't tend to re-enforce one another:

    Godel - A finite language can only describe a finite system.
    Bayes - A probability of 1 (guaranteed to occur) event cannot be predicted by statistical methods
    Fermi - It is impossible to predict any quantum event based solely upon finite observations.

This suggests the human neurological operation has a common observation/understanding limitation which repeats within any area of scientific research - when faced with infinite values [ example: f(x)=(1/X) ] the mind must use a finite substitute ("infinity").

Excellent trolling, refute the summary of an article about poor understanding of the meaning of science with a Popperian negative-proof masquerading as a strawman. Either you are a grand-master of hyperbole, or you don't bother to read to comprehension before declaring something invalid. Irony, since that's pretty much exactly the OP - many humans really love to declare themselves aligned with SCIENCE! Yet few are actually consistently able to operate scientifically.